#i think we're all our own worst critics after all

[somer-writes]

Ha! I finally opened your AO3 and realized I have read some of your fics! I especially remembered the one where the shadow tricks Hyrule and then horrifies him, and he wakes up and Twi comforts him. I think I read it early on, before I had an account. So I’m glad to meet the author of that fic! And you have so many more! I read the Hyrule vs Shadow where Lefend goes after Twilight, and LOVE IT!

aaaah thank you!! youre too kind!

iirc that was one of my whumptober pieces! a lot my whumptober work was really stupidly dramatic XD all the a n g s t but its fun so why not :D

im glad youre enjoying!!! i think 99% of my fics are twilight oriented in some way bc hes best boy lmao

although i do give sky some interesting stuff in The Truth Hangs (which is 43k so srsly you can skip to the bits with sky if you like XD)

[lovemari]

IMPORTANT: Hello! My old account, Lovemari, got deleted. Therefore, I had to make a new one. I'm honestly pretty upset about this so I'll take some time to recover! Thankfully, all my posts are saved as I write them in google docs before posting. Please like and reblog so I can reach my old followers and potentially new ones!

Family - Scaramouche x Reader

Reminder: I'm not an experienced writer so construction criticism is always welcome! Also, I write for fun. I just wanted to share my work around the world!

Pairing: Scaramouche x Reader

Synopsis: Scaramouche realizes that you're not in the best life, so he makes it better.

Notes: I want to warn you that you have an abusive father in this relationship. words such as “slutty” are used. though, it does have a cute ending!! Also, this isn't stepcest!! I want to point that out. Ei doesn't adopt you! She just treats you like your own! Please don't take it the wrong way.

Scaramouche heard about you from his friends, though he never cared to listen. He didn't pay attention to those who never gained his interest.

That was until today. Scaramouche was your partner for the upcoming history project. He let out a quiet groan as he walked to your desk.

“Listen.” he ordered, “this is a huge part of our grade. Don't mess up.” You took a step back, intimidated by his demand. with a slow, uneasy nod, you sat back to your desk.

Scaramouche looked down with annoyance, “let's go to your house after school.” You looked at him, about to protest but scaramouche cut you off, “we're doing it, whether you like it or not. got it?”

You didn't say anything, though you wanted to. you slumped into your seat, your hands unable to stay still. You were nervous.

After school, you allowed scaramouche to follow you home. It was against your will but you knew Scaramouche's personality quite well.

You quietly opened the door, hoping not to disturb. Scaramouche snickered, “are you always like this?” he judged, clearly getting under your skin. His voice stopped when he looked up to see a tall man, “you slutty child.” He snapped, looking furious. Scaramouche realized that this man was talking about [name]. The man slapped them, “you thought you could be quiet, huh? thought you could sneak in a boy for god knows why?!” he assumed, clearly thinking of the worst.

Scaramouche decided to step in, “we're here for a project, sir.” he explained, trying to keep a modest attitude to the man. The man spit at [name] before walking away.

Scaramouche sighed in relief before helping you up, “is he your father?” he questioned, answered by a nod from you. Scaramouche felt disgusted but hid it, he didn't want to show any vulnerability.

Scaramouche went upstairs, with [name] slowly following behind. He went into your room and locked the door. [Name’s] room was quite babyish. He figured that you probably didn't receive a lot of things.

Scaramouche felt apologetic, “sorry.” he sympathized. It wasn't a lot but [name] already started crying. They hugged scaramouche.

“There, there.” Scaramouche comforted, patting your back. He gave you a light head pat, showing vulnerability and care. Even though he didn't want to, he felt like you needed it.

A few weeks passed by and scaramouche has been taking you to your house every single day. He explained that you should stay away from your father. Although it sounded wrong, it was clearly the right choice.

You and scaramouche didn't really do much. Scaramouche often gave you items to draw with. He thought of it as some sort of therapy for you. He often put some ideas on the table and encouraged you to recreate it.

You felt like this was your second home. Scaramouche's mother, Ei, was extremely sweet and caring, despite her fearful and intimidating figure and occupation.

Ei felt like you were another child, going as far as preparing a bedroom for you and smothering you with love.

As for your father, he didn't care. He told ei to “take the child.” and that “he didn't want it.” Ei did exactly that.

Even though you weren't exactly in the family, you felt loved by the family. You had some feelings for scaramouche, though you never admired them. not now, at least.

You knew scaramouche felt the same way. He often kissed your head, whenever you were drawing. You loved it.

You were basically living with your boyfriend's family. A family who took care of you and treated you as their own and most importantly, a boyfriend who loved you.

[ilgaksu]

i'm finally in enough of a bad mood today to take it out on something by breaking my long-held promise never to write fandom meta on disability again so HEY LET'S GO.

so, go read this post first (spoilers for fullmetal alchemist, but the thesis of the post is that respect for bodily autonomy is a sign of love, even when in most modern media it's disregarded as a sign of it, especially in medical contexts. it's so eloquently and beautifully put that it's a great jumping off point.)

okay, so: did anybody else get given this kind of dilemma in early critical thinking studies at school? the example we got given is this: your wife is dying and needs a medical treatment to save her life, but the medical treatment directly contravenes her lifelong religious or spiritual beliefs. should you do it?

honestly, i think a lot about how the husband in those articles and examples is framed as some kind of unspeakable monster if he upholds her beliefs and lets her life be lived in continuous honour of those beliefs, knowing she will die in alignment with them but that she will die. he's always a monster if he does that, or backwards, or unscientific, or uncaring - as opposed to, depending on how you frame it, and you can frame it so many ways, the one person in that room truly on his wife's side, and having to make the worst decision anyone can make. and how the only compassionate thing is to have no judgement and instead pray like hell that you're never personally standing there by someone's hospital bed having to make the kind of decision like that, with a time limit on life and death, and having to war with your own wants over the explicit known desires of the person you love.

and the medical staff are trained to save someone's life at all costs. that is their remit. but what about yours?

what if it's life and death, but they're conscious? what if the person is entirely cognisant, and conscious, and able to make their own medical decisions, and is, despite their medical situation, currently able to physically live alone without support? what if they aren't, but medical autonomy and human dignity is based not on the necessities of physical support, but in the inviolable right to self-determine your own medical decisions for as long as you can? and how often are those necessities perceived as demands? what if we show, often, more respect for the dead and their burial wishes than for their final medical wishes when alive? what if we have to acknowledge that us doing that is out of love and fear and more love? that we're the person standing at that hospital bed, and we prayed like hell but it happened to us and to someone we love anyway, and now we're having to choose but what we actually want is more time and we'd do anything on our end to ensure it?

why is it easier, in that moment, to empathise with the person standing at the end of the hospital bed, and not the person in it? is it because we're far more likely, statistically, to be the former and be able to communicate our feelings on it after the event, compared to the person in it, who may pass away? is it because we're a society so afraid of death that we're afraid to meaningfully debate on what it means to die on our own terms?

what if the person shuts you down and refuses to engage on the topic, beyond being very clear about what they want? what if it's no longer up for discussion, but you have, you believe, options left that they aren't seeing or agreeing to? what if you know they won't consent to it if you ask honestly and ahead of time? do you then have the right to show up and demand it of them? do you have the right of intervention, if you know it's a decision they've already made, because you feel the decision is wrong? do you have the right to tell other people their private medical information without their consent to gain that help? do you have a right to any of it? do you have the right to override someone's autonomy like that?

what if you are their partner? what choice is you showing up for them, and what choice is you just bargaining for more time, at any cost? even if it feels like they aren't even showing up for themselves anymore?

anyway heihua movie is solely about a tentacle monster in a cave, nothing else to see here

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Watch this video first, then scroll down.

I want to do a quick exercise. Close your eyes.

I want you to picture your best friend. Think about what specifically you love about them. What trait makes them them?

Now open your eyes.

I don't know what each of you came up with, but I'm pretty sure I know what you didn't come up with. I’m pretty sure none of you thought, "What makes Jim Jim is the fact that he's six-foot-two and a redhead." I'm guessing you chose their inner qualities, their sense of humor, their generosity, their intelligence, qualities they would have no matter what they looked like.

There's one more quality I'm pretty sure you didn't choose. Their race.

Of all the things you could list about somebody, their race is just about the least interesting you can name, right down there with height and hair color.

Sure, race can be good source material for jokes at a comedy club, but in the real world, a person's race doesn't tell you whether they're kind or selfish, whether their beliefs are right or wrong, whether they'll become your best friend or your worst enemy.

But over the past ten years, our societies have become more and more fixated on racial identity.

We've all been invited to reflect on our inner whiteness or inner Blackness, as if these racial essences define who we are.

Meanwhile, American society has experienced the greatest crisis in race relations in a generation. Gallup has been asking Americans how they feel about race relations, and this chart is the result.

So as you can see, between 2001 and 2013, most Americans felt good about race relations. Then both lines take a nosedive.

It's no exaggeration to call this one of the greatest crises of our time. And clearly we need new ways of thinking about race if we're going to reverse this trend.

So today I'm going to offer an old idea, but it's an idea that's been widely misunderstood.

You've probably heard it before. It's called color blindness. What do I mean by color blindness? After all, we all see race. We can't help it. And what's more, race can influence how we're treated and how we treat other people.

So in that sense, nobody is truly colorblind. But to interpret the word colorblind so literally is to misunderstand it.

Colorblind is a word like warmhearted. It uses a physical metaphor to capture an abstract idea. To call someone warmhearted isn’t to talk about the temperature of their heart but about the kindness of their soul.

And similarly, to advocate for color blindness is not to pretend you don't notice race. It's to support a principle that we should try our best to treat people without regard to race, both in our personal lives and in our public policy.

And you might be thinking, what's so controversial about that? Well, the fact is the philosophy of color blindness is under attack.

Critics say that it's naive or that we're not yet ready for it as a society or even that it's white supremacy in disguise.

And many people agree with these feelings.

[ Continued... ]

--

By: Coleman Hughes

Published: Sep 26, 2023

Like any young writer, I am well aware that an invitation to speak at TED can be a career-changing opportunity. So you can imagine how thrilled I was when I was invited to appear at this year’s annual conference. What I could not have imagined from an organization whose tagline is “ideas worth spreading” is that it would attempt to suppress my own. 

As an independent podcaster and author, I count myself among the lucky few who can make a living doing what they truly love to do. Nothing about my experience with TED could change that. The reason this story matters is not because I was treated poorly, but because it helps explain how organizations can be captured by an ideological minority that bends even the people at the very top to its will. In that, the story of TED is the story of so many crucial and once-trustworthy institutions in American life.

Let’s go back to the start.

This past April, I gave a talk at the yearly TED conference in Vancouver, Canada. In my talk, I defended color blindness: the idea that we should treat people without regard to race, both in our personal lives and in our public policy. (This is also the topic of my forthcoming book.) 

Even though a majority of Americans believe that color-blind policies are the right approach to governing a racially diverse society, we live in a strange moment in which many of our elite believe that color blindness is, in fact, a Trojan horse for white supremacy. Taking that viewpoint seriously—while ultimately refuting it—was the express purpose of my talk. 

As you might imagine, TED is an unbelievably well-oiled machine. In the weeks and months leading up to the conference, I wrote my talk, revised it in conjunction with TED’s curation team, and cleared it with their fact-checkers. I have never prepared more thoroughly for a talk. On April 19, I stepped onstage in front of an audience of nearly 2,000 people and delivered it.   

TED draws a progressive crowd, so I expected that my talk might upset a handful of people. And indeed, out of the corner of my eye, I saw a handful of scowling faces. But the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. The audience applauded; some people even stood up. Throughout the meals and in hallways, people approached me to say they loved it, and those who disagreed with it offered smart and thoughtful criticisms. 

But the day after my talk, I heard from Chris Anderson, the head of TED. He told me that a group called “Black@TED”—which TED’s website describes as an “Employee Resource Group that exists to provide a safe space for TED staff who identify as Black”—was “upset” by my talk. Over email, Chris asked if I’d be willing to speak with them privately. 

I agreed to speak with them on principle, that principle being that you should always speak with your critics because they may expose crucial blind spots in your worldview. No sooner did I agree to speak with them than Chris told me that Black@TED actually was not willing to speak to me. I never learned why. I hoped that this strange about-face was the end of the drama. But it was only the beginning.

On the final day of the conference, TED held its yearly “town hall”—at which the audience can give feedback on the conference. The event opened with two people denouncing my talk back-to-back. The first woman called my talk “racist” as well as “dangerous and irresponsible”—comments that were met with cheers from the crowd. The second commentator, Otho Kerr, a program director at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, claimed that I was “willing to have us slide back into the days of separate but equal.” (The talk is online, so you can judge for yourself whether those accusations bear any resemblance to reality.)

In response to their comments, Anderson took the mic and thanked them for their remarks. He also reminded the audience that “TED can’t shy away from controversy on issues that matter so much”—a statement I very much agreed with and appreciated. Because he said as much, I left the conference fairly confident that TED would release and promote my talk just like any other, in spite of the staff and audience members who were upset by it. 

Two weeks later, Anderson emailed to tell me that there was “blowback” on my talk and that “[s]ome internally are arguing we shouldn’t post it.” In the email, he told me that the “most challenging” blowback had come from a “well-known” social scientist (who I later learned was Adam Grant). He quoted from Grant’s message directly:

Really glad to see TED offering viewpoint diversity—we need more conservative voices—but as a social scientist, was dismayed to see Coleman Hughes deliver an inaccurate message. His case for color blindness is directly contradicted by an extensive body of rigorous research; for the state of the science, see Leslie, Bono, Kim & Beaver (2020, Journal of Applied Psychology). In a meta-analysis of 296 studies, they found that whereas color-conscious models reduce prejudice and discrimination, color-blind approaches often fail to help and sometimes backfire.

I read the paper that Grant referenced, titled “On Melting Pots and Salad Bowls: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Diversity Ideologies,” expecting to find arguments against color blindness. I was shocked to find that the paper largely supported my talk. In the results section, the authors write that “colorblindness is negatively related to stereotyping” and “is also negatively related to prejudice.” They also found that “meritocracy is negatively related to discrimination.” 

I wrote back to Anderson:

Far from a refutation of my talk, this meta-analysis is closer to an endorsement of it.  The only anti–color blindness finding in the paper is that color blindness & meritocracy are associated with opposing DEI policies. Well, I do oppose race-based DEI policies in most (but not all) cases. Unapologetically. But that is a philosophical disagreement, not an example of me delivering incorrect social science.  I feel it would be unjustified not to release my talk simply because many people disagree with my philosophical perspective. By that standard, most TED talks would never get released.

To which he responded: “Thanks, Coleman. Great note. More soon.” 

Before this email exchange, I hadn’t seriously considered the possibility that TED might not post my talk at all. What’s more, the fact that the “most challenging” blowback to my talk was a social science paper showing that color blindness reduces stereotyping and prejudice puzzled me.

About a week later, I received an email from Whitney Pennington Rodgers, the current affairs curator at TED and the point person for the curation of my talk. Whitney said that in lieu of releasing my TED talk normally, TED was inviting me “to participate in a moderated conversation that we would publish as an extension of your talk.” I’m always happy to converse and debate, so I agreed—too hastily, in retrospect. I had assumed that the phrase “an extension of your talk” was meant metaphorically—i.e., that this “moderated conversation” would be a separate video. Only later in the email exchange did I realize that it was meant literally. In other words, TED wanted my talk and this “moderated conversation” to be released as a single, combined video. 

I had two problems with this. First, it would hold the release of my TED talk hostage to the existence of this other “moderated conversation” (which at the time was not guaranteed to happen at all). Secondly, I worried that tacking a debate to the end of my TED talk would effectively put an asterisk next to it. It would imply that my argument ought not be heard without also hearing the opposing perspective—that it shouldn’t be absorbed without a politically palate-cleansing chaser. Given that my talk had passed the initial fact-checking, the curation team, and had been cleared by Anderson and Rodgers themselves, I saw no reason why it wouldn’t be released and promoted as any other talk would be. I told Rodgers as much over a Zoom call. 

Because she and I were unable to come to an agreement, I had a follow-up call with Anderson. On that call, he conceded that his employees’ anger stemmed from political bias, but nevertheless asked me to agree to an atypical release strategy: TED would release the debate and the talk as separate videos, but at the same time. He sold this idea to me as a way to amplify my talk—as if this atypical release strategy were conceived for my benefit. That made little sense to me. The reality, I told him, was that these nonstandard release strategies were intended not to amplify my message but to dilute it. After all, the whole genesis of this debacle was the fact that certain TED staffers wanted to nix my talk altogether—and Anderson feared an internal firestorm if my talk were released normally. Clearly, the release proposals being pressed upon me were conceived in order to placate angry staffers, not in order to amplify my message. 

By the end of the calls, we had reached a compromise: TED would release and promote my talk as they would any other, and I would participate in a debate that would be released as a separate video no fewer than two weeks after my talk.

I held up my end of the bargain. TED did not. 

My talk was posted on the TED website on July 28. The debate was posted two weeks later. By the time the debate came out, I had moved on—I assumed that TED had held up its end of the bargain and was no longer paying close attention. 

Then, on August 15, Tim Urban––a popular blogger who delivered one of the most viewed TED talks of all time—pointed out that my talk had only a fraction of the views of every other TED talk released around the same time. Urban tweeted: 

There have been a million talks about race at TED. For this talk and only for this talk was the speaker required to publicly debate his points after the talk as a condition for having it posted online. As it is, the lack of standard promotion by TED has Coleman’s talk at about 10% of the views of all the other talks surrounding his on their site.

Two days later, I checked to see if Tim was onto something. As of August 17, the two talks released just before mine had 569K and 787K views, respectively, on TED’s website. The two talks released immediately after mine—videos that had less time to circulate than mine—had 460K, 468K views, and 489K views, respectively. My talk, by comparison, had 73K views—only 16 percent of the views of the lowest-performing video in its immediate vicinity. 

My debate with Jamelle Bouie—a New York Times columnist with almost half a million followers on X, formerly Twitter—has performed even worse on TED’s website. As of Tuesday, September 19—after having over a month to circulate—it had a whopping 5K views. That makes it the third worst-performing video released by TED in all of 2023. 

Either my TED content is performing extremely poorly because it is far less interesting than most of TED’s content, or TED deliberately is not promoting it. A string of evidence points to the latter explanation: unique among the TED talks released around the same time as mine, my talk has still not been reposted to the TED Talks Daily podcast. In fact, it was not even posted to YouTube until I sent an email inquiry. 

According to its website, TED’s mission is to “discover and spread ideas that spark imagination, embrace possibility, and catalyze impact.” They claim to be “devoted to curiosity, reason, wonder, and the pursuit of knowledge—without an agenda.” My experience suggests otherwise, with TED falling far short of those ambitions and instead displaying all the hallmarks of an institution captured by the new progressive orthodoxy. TED’s leadership must decide whether it wants to do something about it—or let the organization become yet another echo chamber. 

==

Let's call this what it was: an attempt, at a grassroots level, of agitating for blasphemy laws within TED. That's really what it was, accusations of blasphemy and heresy.

The correct answer, and there is one, is to discipline - and if necessary, dismiss - employees who violate the values and ethics of the organization. No matter how shrill and couch-fainting they are. Netflix did it. Get rid of them and they'll squawk a bit, and some of their fellow fundamentalists will rally around them, but they'll be out of your organization. Release a statement about your company's principles and values, and then let it blow over. Because it will.

You don't concede to religious fanatics. You stand up to them. Consistently. Especially when they work for you. (FFS, how were the highest levels of management afraid of the plebs?)

[courtanie]

how were you able to get into writing and did you ever struggle? i'm currently 20 years old and attempting to develop my skills, but it feels so infuriating knowing that i'm somewhat behind in comparison to other people my age. the comparison thing is a major roadblock - i read tons of media and whenever it's my turn to write, i look back on whatever i've written, read, then boil in envy. i don't know how to write well without making myself feel bad.

Well first off, take a deep breath and know that every writer has gone through exactly that and continues to do so. It's a game of never-ending improvement and backsliding and reusing any prose you come up with that you actually liked a teeny bit and honestly it's all just a mess.

But it can be a fun mess.

I started writing when I was 15 and it was literally just an outlet for my teenage rage at that point. Then trauma happened and it became a trauma outlet instead. But also I was just bubbling with ideas and no one wrote things that I wanted to read in particular so clearly I just had to do it myself. Which is literally what I still do. No one else is writing Kyle having a bad time in the exact way I like it so I gotta take the reins.

I know the rule of thumb is "never compare yourself!!!!" but literally no one heeds that. No one can. I compare myself to others, too (which is half the reason I stopped reading don't do that like I did srsly it's a bad idea). But like here's the thing: Do you want to get your stories out? That's literally all that matters. It doesn't matter how bad/good/mediocre it may be, you're writing for you. And you just have to accept that sometimes you're gonna write badly. I still do alllll the time. Sometimes my chapters are really poor because I'm slogging through them trying to get to the exciting parts that prompted the story idea in the first place. Sometimes I have to go back six years later and edit a large portion of a story because I want it going in a different direction or I just thought that what I had didn't hold up. I've deleted so many of my old stories, I've cringed and apologized to my audience and myself so many fucking times.

I shouldn't've.

Bad writing is still something that wasn't there before you brought it into the world. It's still creative and enthralling and a piece of you. Babe you're gonna cringe and you're gonna get angry with yourself and you're gonna get hung up on a sentence and not be able to look at that chapter again to work on it for a couple months because you're so frustrated and lost. But that's okay! It's the process. That whole "we're our own worst critic" adage holds a lot of water, but you have to embrace it and just keep pushing forward regardless. Write it and if you still don't like it, go back and rewrite the entire thing again with the first one open as comparison. You'll make wild changes and settle into it better, trust me.

And believe me, I've struggled and continue to do so. I am literally being roasted by my readers because "oh wow the annual update!" which. Is hilarious and true. I'm really struggling right now due to real life stuff and I've gone on several hiatuses in my 15 years writing. I am notorious about shittalking my style and my lack of creativity. I am wildly out of practice and it's showed lately so I'm back crawling my way up the hill trying to find my footing again and improve after my backslide. But that's what happens with any skill, if you don't use it, if you don't do your damn scales and arpeggios, you're gonna lose what you've gained. And it's disheartening, but it's a reason for you to just keep pushing forward and write the damn thing regardless of self-criticism.

There is always going to be someone better than you, that's how it works for all of us, especially in this subjective of a hobby. But that also means you're better than some people. And the wild thing is, no matter how 'bad' you think you are? You're gonna be someone's favorite author, I absolutely guarantee it. Some of what I considered to be my "worst" stories have had people coming and telling me they were their favorites, that they reread them every night and have their own special binder on their bookshelf. Just keep fucking going, dude. You're never gonna stop improving unless you stop altogether.

[elytrafemme]

my thoughts on "we're all doomed" (by THE daniel howell <333)

warning this is a little critical but altogether written with love <3

i never gave my We're All Doomed takes i'm realizing. okay so i love daniel howell and i'm really glad that this show was healing from him, i could definitely see dystopia daily and the pieces he's discussed of his scrapped (via YouTube's fuck ups) comedy special within the show itself. i thought that the set design/music/lights was fucking INCREDIBLE and i adored the opening segment, the ending of act 1 monologue, and the ending of the show overall.

that being said, i think the show was not like... narratively cohesive? it was a lot of segments that didn't really logically follow from one another, and they would range from being genuinely funny to going on for entirely too long (the judge segment being his favorite shocked me because... Uh). the ending of act one didn't really roll over into the start of act two in a way that made sense to me-- it set me up for an entirely different direction of act two that i think i would have maybe preferred? similar with the wardrobe change, it was gorg and i understood what he was going for but it didn't really hit as well as it could because i think it was mistimed.

my main complaint, which will not be well-received for anyone who cares deeply about this due to the fact that WAD was distinctly a comedy special, is the fact that i'm like... a leftist? and i know daniel howell is in his own rich-British-white-man way, but a lot of the "takes" confused me because i couldn't tell if he was genuinely trying to make a strong argument as a left-wing person (in which case i think i'm allowed to have respectful criticism of it) or if it was supposed to lean heavy on the satire (in which case ???). obviously this is no critical commentary/cancellation of him as a person, he's great and has done SO much good in the world, i'm not trying to imply he's the worst or whatever. it was just funny because me and my friend (also a leftist) kept squinting at the camera being like... okay dan this is an... interesting argument. this majorly happened in the last segment, when he just did the costume change and tried to talk about global events and he made a VERY good argument but gave us hell along the way because at several points it almost became the worst take ever (trying to relate global events to things in his personal life was definitely like... a decision. for sure.)

in any case, i did adore it, if only for the segments i listed above that i liked. the fan reacts were cute (we couldnt' get ours to work :( ), i fucking LOVED the orange carpet before the show and the Q&A after. me and my friend had a really good time, and i can't wait for what he works on next. also i might cave and buy merch but that depends on how unwise my other purchases this month are.

overall: i have 48 hr access to it but i don't intend to rewatch any part of it, i am glad i watched it at all though and i am left with fond feelings about daniel howell knowing how much the show meant to him-- i've been in that dark place and having that hope means SO much. ultimately though, i didn't love the political commentaries sprinkled throughout, but the show was good. proud of him.

[carinelian]

02272024 | notes on writing

These days, it's getting harder to separate hobbies from means of living. On most days, I can tell whether I'm doing something as a means of living, something for survival, or something as simple as a human being.

On most days, I also delude myself that it's all a matter of compartmentalization. Like choosing which clothes to wear for the day. Except the world is burning, all my clothes are worn down and made for a time long past, and even if I went out butt-naked, there's no way I'm coming out of it unscathed. That's what writing feels like for me, as of late. Or living, in general.

Maybe someday I can flesh out a timely piece on late-stage capitalism, how creative work is reduced to content, the essence of separating fiction and reality, and all the ways they influence each other without being mistaken as one and the same. We're living through an ongoing health and climate crisis, multiple genocides, and rotting from the inside out thanks to decades of exploitation and systemic ills. Global fuckening to the highest, most damning scale. I wish this is fiction. The context behind that thought terrifies me.

I wish I can save the serious writing for when it really, really counts, but as it stands, tomorrow isn't promised. Never was.

That's what spurred me on, to write this little note. I think I'll be writing more. I have my WIPs, I have my vague little scenarios in my head that will probably haunt me until they get their well-deserved 100K novel, and these occasional trains of thought that derail and create their own train tracks in my mind. There's also the shitstorm that's going on in real life, real time. There's no neat shelf for me to separate the things I care about and things I don't, because it affects us all.

To write online, without capturing all the possible nuances of whatever the fuck it is you're writing about, is an invitation to be flayed alive. For this reason, I shied away from writing about things that matter to me -- much like this one -- because shutting up means no trouble. No room for mistake. After all, what's there to criticize?

But then I realized, well, it's a sad way for a writer to live (at least for me), knowing that writing has been long ingrained in my life. It's a hobby. It's a means of living (hopefully *side-eyes publishers*), and it's a means of survival, with the way it calms me down and is an outlet for my anxieties. It's a way of life, it's not all of me, but it's a HUGE part of me.

Where was I going with this? Oh yeah. Fiction and real-world issues overlap. They bleed into what I write, regardless of whether or not I permit it, and I look for fiction -- hope for fiction -- in the face of staggering, depressing, and bleak reality. Perhaps the intersection here is where fiction is supposed to inspire you to take meaningful action in real life. And real life finds its way to fiction, one way or another, in the little bits and pieces of us writers that we leave in our stories. I'm so chronically online that I could think of a thousand ways critics can gut this paragraph like a fish and come up with the worst meanings.

But then again, maybe the people who need some comfort will find it, too. Maybe people will add into it, I learn something new, and we ALL learn something new. If you're having complicated feelings about writing, questioning what the fuck is it to you, trying to deal with that maddening shelf -- well, here I am. Write whatever the fuck you want to write. Write loudly, unapologetically, meaningfully, purposefully. May your words add a little bit of hope. And if doesn't, may it free you, may it release you, may it provide some relief. Or if you're out there to disturb, then do it. Put your horrors and your fears into paper. Trap them with ink. Slap them with periods and put a name on whatever haunts you.

Write, for fuck's sake. And this is a reminder to myself, in the most literal sense.

[amedleyofthoughts]

I am here. I am.

The new year is always a confusing period for me. It brings about this need for self reflection and evaluation of the year previous. Most of that reflection and self criticism ends with my own disappointment in my actions or lack thereof.

As I've made a post of his work earlier this year, I'm a fan of John Green's writings. It's not a surprise after reading his novels over my lifetime from middle school to now that there's something special about his way of connecting to so many people through his works. I discovered in my feed at the end of 2022 a video of a short essay from his book, The Anthropocene Reviewed, by the title, "Auld Lang Syne". It was ground breaking for me to watch. It gave me such a sense of hope in every aspect. I really could not recommend enough that anyone read his book or even just spare twenty minutes of their day to watch the video.

I watched it over and over again this morning. While I ate breakfast, while I showered and after when I put myself through my skincare routine. I listened to it as I dressed in my pajamas and made up my bed. I watched it, I sang, and I cried. Maybe for some that doesn't sound all too strange. But I don't cry or sing. Like ever.

I wouldn't say that I'm an emotionally driven person. I'd like to think that overall I'm very logical in my reasoning for certain actions. Somewhere along my lifetime to this moment I built walls to protect myself from the pain that people in this world can cause us. Pain others have been the cause of and sometimes even from those in our lives that were meant to protect us from that pain can be the worst perpetrators. Though the worst pain I've ever experienced in my lifetime always came from myself.

It's taken what feels like a lifetime, so much of my own lifetime to finally step towards what feels like the right path for myself. To finally start to let these walls crumble and become overgrown and soften covered in moss and ivy. I want to follow a path that leads beyond these walls that I built in my fear and isolation from the world. A path that I hope will lead me to a place I feel I belong, wholeheartedly, without any doubt or fear.

It's not that I've never been emotionally responsive from a creative work before, but something about John's writing has elicited these emotions from me in a way that I can't quite remember many others doing previously. One particular part of this essay that reads, "I'll never speak again to many of the people who loved me into this moment, just as you will never speak to many of the people who loved you into your now and so we raise a glass to them and hope that perhaps somewhere they are raising a glass to us". It was one of the most emotionally evoking sentences from that essay that had me breaking down into tears. I couldn't help but to sing along also to the rendition of the song, Auld Lang Syne, and its tune at the end of the video.

I can see the hope in it. I can feel the swell of its emotion in my breast when I hear the song. No matter its macabre or somber history with the altered lyrics. I sang along, screechy and out of tune. I sang as my voice warbled with emotion and I sang until I couldn't stop sobbing. It was cathartic to cry like that. It felt good to cry like that.

The song in question is very simple and only about one line of a repetitive phrase, but in context just feels so right.

"We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here".

After John explains where the rendition of the song comes from he gives the song some context in the next few paragraphs of his essay and writes,"It became a statement that we are here-meaning that we are together and not alone. And it's also a statement that we are, that we exist. And it's a statement that we are here, that a series of astonishing unlikelihoods has made us possible and here possible. We might never know why we are here, but we can still proclaim in hope that we are here. I don't think such hope is foolish or idealistic or misguided. We live in hope-that life will get better, and more importantly that it will go on, that love will survive even though we will not."

Reading and listening to this essay was so healing. It reminds me of all the work I've done to get to this moment and gives me a mantra I would like to live by until all of my days are done. And considering how long I've spent not wanting to be here. I think that's pretty great.

I am here. I am not alone. I exist and I deserve to exist. I can hope and I do hope. My hope is not foolish or idealistic or misguided. My life will get better and it will go on, that the love I pour into myself and others will go on. (I know it's a bit spot on the nose, but I'd hope John would forgive me.)

For the first time in a very long time, I'm welcoming in the beginning of this new year. Not with overthinking my past life or old decisions. Not talking myself into circles of self hatred and loathing. I'm letting myself be in this now and accepting what and who has come and gone while anticipating what will be.

[that-gay-jedi]

So like. Why is censorship and intentionally suppressing books you don't like okay when transphobes do it but when trans people try to add a shred of context to transphobic propaganda bound in book form it's book-burning and ushering in another dark age?

And yes this is partially about the trans books that were affected by the currently much-discussed review bombing events, but this is far from the first time I've been frustrated by this particular double standard and I WISH I could say it's mainly coming from the religious right but like. Most of the hypocritical behaviour around censorship seems to come from radfems and radfem supporters, who blend in to fandom spaces more easily than most of the religious fanatics you'll encounter online.

The worst part is that I've seen (from the circus that took place a couple years ago when a library in my region began promoting fuckin' Irreversible Damage) that non-trans people, even GNC and LGB ones, genuinely cannot be trusted to think critically about literature relating to trans bodies and have absolutely no commitment to hearing "both sides" of any issue related to transness, and I hate that we can't expect these adults to act like adults but I'm not willing to let trans children and teens suffer forced detransitioning, conversion therapy, homelessness, "corrective" abuse and assault, etc etc for my own beliefs about anything, not even something as important as anti-censorship.

And let me be clear that when this all happened I didn't even say the damn thing should be taken off the shelves, just that it shouldn't be passed around without adequate factual context and that I was disappointed the library glibly gave money to an author who spends it on anti-trans causes.

And all this time it's been our books that are perpetually in danger of being banned, censored beyond recognition, suppressed, restricted, erased, and actually physically burned. Ours that were in the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. Ours that are still targeted both by organized networks of hate and individual bad actors. Our stories that can still get an author all manner of legal and extrajudicial punishments just for being told. Not the trans-exclusionary "feminist" literature, not the Bible, not whatever damned thing is being protected by people whose desire to be seen as martyrs vastly outweighs any real backlash that expensive square of toilet paper has ever gotten.

But sure call me a woke mob book burner SJW fascist, words don't have any meaning anymore, Earth is the timeout corner of the universe and we're stuck on this purgatory planet together until the cumulative physical effects of holding in my opinions on the subject cause me to instantly drop dead of some kind of record-breaking heart attack.

So yeah forgive me if I'm a little bitter. I swear I'm gonna just filter another dozen or so tags after this and pretend that I'm not losing my hard-won scraps of faith in humanity at an unbelievable rate.

[chaotic-archaeologist]

Bore da!

I asked you last month or so, me being nervous about beginning my lecture series. I am finishing the first part of my lecture series tomorrow and I just wanted to share a little update!

The first couple of lectures were awful -- or I felt they went pear-shaped. Mostly because of the pace; it's not the same giving a paper than giving a lecture. Students are actually taking notes of *everything* you say, even when I tell them to simply listen. But I think I got the rhythm tight now, and I am actually very happy with the lecturing, and looking forward to teach.

Yesterday was my first lecture on Hellenistic arch, and I showed them the Antikythera mechanism and there were dropped jaws and stunned silences. It was even better than when I dropped my slides linking the origins of Athenian democracy to tyrannicide and homoerotic paiderasty. That was worth it.

I'm really enjoying teaching and I just wanted to thank you for your support back when I sent you my first ask! If by chance you ever need any hints on Classical arch, pls let me know

diolch o galon

Nos da! (It's the evening for me as I write this)

Congratulations! And also, I'm not surprised. Your students are lucky to have you. I would like to be in this class. Can I take this class, please? Just tell me when to show up.

I'm so, so glad you've been having a good time. I'd also be willing to bet that your students' perception of your first lectures aren't nearly as negative as your own. We're our own worst critics, after all.

Take a minute to be proud of yourself, if you haven't already. You deserve it.

-Reid

[spynorth]

remember that we are all probably our own worst critics and that the rpc doesn't judge writing like people pretend we do

i am about to be the biggest bearer of bad news. roleplayers absolutely judge each other's writing. Judgement or being critical of something doesn't mean you have to be actively tearing it down or sending anon hate, but when you see a blog where you go holy fuck because of their writing or portrayal or whatever .. you're making a judgment call. When you see a blog and think no thanks and don't return a follow/follow first because of whatever reason .. you're judging. Claiming that no one truly does that is you lying to yourself and anyone who believes it. I have specific things I look for with writers I love. I'm not after the character, or the aesthetics, I'm after the writing. I would write/follow the personification of a trash can if it was a writing flow I vibed with. I've grown so much as a writer over the years because I've been able to listen to friends, people I admire (my friends fall under that category as well as strangers haha) and others I might not usually agree with discuss what they like and don't like about writing, what sorts of things captures their attention, what draws them in. It's different for everyone and we all have the things we look for. I mark up the books I revisit over and over again and ask myself why I keep reading them when I already know the story. I'm sure there are different levels and I can promise I'm harder on myself than I am on anyone else, but there are writers ( not just roleplayers) who have influenced my writing because I want to do the total opposite of what they did because their wording is clunky or jars me out of a scene or is too much telling and not enough showing and I think all of us as writers can admit to having come across that.

I completely get what you're trying to say but I don't agree with it. I can't imagine writing threads or following with someone whose writing I don't like, so I absolutely 'judge' writing and I know others do to, even if they wanna paint it as something different. But saying we're all our own worst critics .. that part is so fucking true lmao. It's important to remember, though, that while we do judge/get judged in return .. there are always people who are gonna love your style. and thats who matters. someone's personal taste doesn't define your ability and i think a lot of people forget that.

[tellywoodtrash]

I have something I wanted your perspective on, but before I ask, I know you've been getting a lot of asks like this recently (I read some of them), and if you need more time to answer this one, that's fine. I really hope you're doing well and aren't too overwhelmed by asks like this (listening to people vent about their issues is not the easiest thing, I hope you're not feeling burdened). Now, my ask. I've had anxiety and panic disorder since 12th grade. I was going to therapy for it, and +

it was getting better throughout college. My panic attacks had actually stopped for a while, and I thought things were getting better. After graduating, I moved back home while working on grad school apps, and things started getting bad again. The panic attacks are coming back, and I'm starting to visibly twitch because of them. The reason for that is my own intrusive thoughts about my parents. I have a mostly healthy relationship with them, but I'm the eldest daughter in my family, so while growing up, my parents naturally struggled with some parenting things. They have yelled at me and hit me sometimes when I misbehaved or when they didn't approve of something I did, and they still do sometimes, because they don't love how introverted and quiet I am. The amount of nitpicking they do is overwhelming at times, but they're not bad people and I feel guilty for disliking some things they do at times. I'm in therapy again. Can you still give me your opinions on all this?

Hi friend!

First of all, thank you for being so considerate and concerned about my well-being as well. You're right in that listening to people's problems isn't easy, but so far I'm doing okay; I still feel like I have the reserves to give to anyone who needs it. If at any point I find it weighing on me, I shall be sure to let everyone know that I need a break.

Sighhhhhhh, desi parents. Can't live with them, can't (sometimes) live without them. They're really difficult to get our minds around, because they're bundles of unresolved traumas and mental health issues themselves, but from a generation where it wasn't accepted to question the system or acknowledge any weakness in this area. They themselves have suffered through the things that they put us through, and so they perpetuate harmful things without realizing how messed up it is. And the worst part is, they're resistant to being shown the truth; because that means acknowledging that they've been doing something wrong for all these years. That's a really bitter pill for anyone to swallow, especially confronting the fact that their parenting served the opposite purpose of nurturing and making their child feeling safe and loved.

You said you moved BACK in, so I'm guessing you had a brief period where you were living independently at your own pace, and that made your mental health better; coming back and living under your parents' roof after such a thing is always hard. I know I struggled a lot, even with minor things like where I wanted certain things to be kept in the kitchen. They find it really hard to give up control and we're forced to regress to being the child we were growing up, where we are now fully grown adults who know how we want to live our own lives. The only real solution I see to this is clear communication and establishment of boundaries. You have a mostly healthy relationship with them; so I think you can tell them in a calm and reasonable manner that their nitpicking and constant criticism is not at all helpful and is in fact, making your mental health even worse, and thus you are going to be enforcing boundaries from now on. Get up and walk away when the conversation is aggravating you. You're an adult now, so they're not going to be able to force you to stay in the room and listen. Just remove yourself from the situation. If they're reasonable people, they'll understand after the first few instances that their lecturing serves no purpose and will cease doing it when it gets them a negative response.

Good job on continuing with the therapy. A professional will be able to help you far more than I can. All I can say is, please don't beat yourself up for getting worse after a period of being okay. Healing in a mental illness is never linear - it's always hills and valleys. It's like with any other chronic illness; like diabetes or cancer. We do well for a certain time while the treatment is working, and then something (often outside our control) can derail it again. And when we find ourselves at such a stage, there's nothing shameful about having to go get professional help. It needs continuous monitoring and checks and adjustments.

Coming back to the parents thing; like I said, it's hard for them at their big old age now to confront their mistakes and change. It requires a lot of reflection and realization on their part. You cannot do this for them. That's their path to walk themselves. On your side all you can do is try and understand where they're coming from (but that absolutely does not mean that you have to do what they're saying. Understand their intentions, but you do what's best for you.) One of the things that really blew my mind and made me see my relationship with my parents in a whole new light was a line from the show Ted Lasso:

I try and extend the compassion and understanding that they didn't receive when they needed it. It doesn't change them or anything, but gives US a sense of healing. I hope you can discuss this with your therapist and they can give you the tools on how to cultivate the mindset and move forward.

Sending you lots of love and hugs and good wishes for your future. 🤗🤗🤗🤗✨✨✨✨

[deadenedmind]

Let's Talk About Sony's Recent Sales Figures

I saw a couple of social media posts today celebrating how a number of PlayStation's flagship titles were losing money.

Personally, I have no love for these games whatsoever, but I felt that some of the recent rhetoric surrounding them is somewhat inaccurate, or at least mischaracterized. While it is relatively true these games are performing poorly, it is my observation they're not doing as poorly as this post might indicate.

Now, before we dive into this proper and crunch some numbers, we need to address a few errors presented in this image.

The first issue here is that, while we do have official numbers for development costs, we do not know how much Sony spent on advertising. I've done as much research as one can, there are no official numbers disclosed anywhere. This guy saying they spent 220 million on marketing is a fabrication; we do not know how much they actually spent.

The second issue present is the statement that "Sony only makes $30 per unit sold." This is somewhat of a half-truth. It is true that Sony nets approximately $30 per unit sold provided that the unit sold was a physical copy, as opposed to a digital one.

Generally speaking, when you make a game, it costs roughly around $5 to print a disk and it's corresponding box. On average, retailers mark the price of new releases they purchase from publishers up by about $10-$15. Distribution and administrative costs are also a factor, but that is typically not calculated on a per unit basis. For the sake of argumentation though, we'll say that costs about $5 per unit. Realistically speaking, it's never anywhere near that much, but we're going to say it's that high just to give people the benefit of the doubt.

All in all, that comes out to $10 in cost of goods sold for a physical unit that a publisher sells to a retailer for $45-$50. That means Sony nets about $35 per physical unit. Now, you maybe thinking I'm splitting hairs over the numbers here and that additional $5 may be inconsequential, and you would be absolutely right, because only 10% of game sales are physical.

90% of games are sold digitally, which not only eliminates manufacturing costs, but it also enables a publisher to sell at an increased price on their own platforms. Instead of selling to a store like GameStop for $45, they can sell to the customer directly for $60. After our gratuitous $5 administration and distribution costs, that means Sony nets $55 per unit on 90% of their sales.

Now let's plug those numbers into a spreadsheet and analyze the results. Let's start with Last of Us Part II, which sold 10 million units as of June 2022.

Now, seeing as we do not know how much Sony spent on marketing for Last of Us 2, I have created a table with potential amounts and their corresponding implications.

What is clearly illustrated here is that, unless Sony spent over 300 million dollars on marketing, Last of Us Part II -at worst- broke even.

Now let's do the same thing for Horizon Forbidden West.

Once again, we can see here that, unless Sony spent more than 225 million on marketing -like our original post stated- Horizon Forbidden West broke even at absolute worst.

With all of that established, we now need to render appropriate context. While it is true that both of these games are not, in fact, losing money, that doesn't mean they aren't doing poorly. The best possible case scenario for Last of Us is that it netted a 103% profit- Horizon netting 83%. This best case scenario, however, is assuming Sony only spent 5 million dollars in advertising, which is extremely unlikely.

I have been critical of 220 million figure mentioned in the original post that spurred this discussion, however, it honestly isn't a bad estimate. 220 million in advertising is fairly high, but it is very much within the realm of plausibility- especially for Sony. Generally speaking, they definitely spent 50 million at absolute minimum. If I had to guess personally, they probably spent 100-150 million. Either way, that places them at a profit of between 76% and 16% for Last of Us, and 53% and 2% for Horizon. That is not good.

Ordinarily, a 30%~ return on investment is great for your average videogame. However, Last of Us part II and Horizon Forbidden West are not your average videogames; they are flagship blockbusters. These are the big guns; these are the nukes Sony uses to blow away the competition and convince gamers to buy PlayStation over XBOX and Nintendo. In this scenario, you generally want a 100% return at bare minimum. And here we are with Last of Us 2 only netting 76% at extreme most.

Now, in case you aren't grasping how bad that is, lets use a contrasting example. The Witcher 3 sold 6 million copies in its first six weeks and had a total budget of 81 million dollars (development + advertising).

You'll be keen to notice that Witcher 3 netted a 193% return on investment versus Last of Us 2's best possible case of 76%. And, once again, Witcher achieved this figure in 6 weeks as opposed to Last of Us 2 which did so in 2 years. This is frankly astonishing because Witcher 3 is self-published by CD Projekt Red, a studio which, prior to Witcher 3's release, was virtually unknown. This is relative to Sony's enormous and legendary pedigree.

Now, there is a small fallacy in my using Witcher 3 as an example, because it was made under exceptional circumstances- that is to say it was made in Poland. Cost of living is not only lower over there, but labor standards are completely different as well. What this means in practice is that game production over there is far less expensive. Further, Last of Us and Horizon are Sony exclusive titles, whereas Witcher 3 is multiplatform, so I will admit that the number comparison isn't totally fair.

For the sake of further argumentation in good faith, lets cite another example. Let's refer to Horizon Zero Dawn, Horizon Forbidden West's immediate predecessor. We do not have concrete numbers on Zero Dawn's budget, but we do have quotes that can corroborate a few ballpark estimates on the development and advertising budgets (See sources below).

Immediately we can see a drastic difference in numbers here. Horizon Zero Dawn is a much larger success than its sequel by a literal order of magnitude. Now, granted, Zero Dawn has been on the market for 6 years but the point still remains. Outside of special circumstances, most games make the majority of their sales in their first year.

And that brings us the to big crux of the issue: Why are these games doing so poorly?

Put simply, it's a matter of over-inflated budgets.

Some people may be inclined to say this is the result of consumers refusing to purchase these games because of the subliminal politics game companies are injecting into their products or controversial changes in creative direction. Truth is, that's definitely part of it, but it's a very small piece of a larger puzzle. Sales numbers might or might not be going down due to consumer protest to a certain extent -I don't have enough data to make that conclusion- but, for the most part, these games are still selling millions of units in reasonable a timeframe. These titles are incredibly popular.

Realistically, the core cause of this problem -if you want to call it that- is explosive rises in the cost of game development and advertising. The one thing we can tangibly observe in the limited data set we examined is that the games that returned the biggest profits had much lower production budgets. The cost to make Horizon Zero Dawn was less than a quarter of what it cost to make Horizon Forbidden West. And the worst part is is that, many including myself would argue that these rises in budget are entirely unnecessary.

Most of these increases in production costs are the result of game developers chasing an untenable level of what is ultimately superficial and entirely unnecessary detail for purposes of marketing. Oftentimes, the only way these companies know how to sell games and game platforms to the lowest common denominator is to advertise visuals, even if better visuals typically don't result in better games. And, of course, technology advances exponentially, so the demand for quality keeps mounting higher and higher and higher.

In other words, game companies are unwittingly killing themselves in an attempt to pander to stupid people.

Is there a solution? Not really. Many people will be inclined to say "Vote with your wallet" but the truth of the matter is is that such protest is an act of futility. Most people do not care about this kind of stuff and the mass market is exactly why we are even in this situation to begin with. And, as we should all well know, there's no fighting the ocean of lemmings that are the mass market.

Sources & Additional Reading:

PROFESSIONAL DISCLAIMER:

DEADMAN (a.k.a DeadenedMind) does not offer or render personalized financial advice through social media. This tumblr post should be used strictly for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, tax, investment, or legal advice.

Viewers are highly encouraged to seek assistance from an accredited and experienced professional before making any financial decisions.

If you'd like to follow DEADMAN, you can find him on the following platforms:

[helshades]

Hello, do you know how to proceed in a university to organize a gathering or a student demonstration? so that we are in large numbers without dispersing? with all the social networks we can no longer get together, everyone goes their own way and we end up with small groups quickly evacuated by the police I'm mainly talking about tomorrow and the days to come, so that we can hold out as long as possible

sorry it's me again, but is blocking university effective? or wouldn't it be better for students to join the strike points where citizens will be gathered to show greater support? especially after the vote on the motion

Honestly, this is what I believe. Let's think on what the aim of the strike is: to cost the managing class dear money, as much of it, in fact, within the shortest amount of time. The more people strike, the less wealth is produced. Strikers do lose money, but shareholders lose profit. And the strikers are in control for as long as the strike lasts.

Part of our common problem these days, beside the fact that we're all broke because of the worst socio-economic crisis since the last war, is that French society, along with the rest of the globalised West, was heavily tertiarised during the last few decades, meaning that our country is critically disindustrialised, with big cities concentrating employment based on services. Geographs speak of metropolitanisation, which tends to reject manual labour outside of the Great urban centres to the periurban and rural areas. This is where the Yellow Vests were born.

In other words, there aren't enough workers in the cities. I think your idea was right: it could prove a better strategy to join forces with existing picket lines at electricity or transport companies for instance, first because there's strength in numbers, and then because it is they who hold the power to put the entire country to a halt if they cease working. It's probably wiser to help them to hold the line against the police.

The problem is communication. Don't you hold general meetings at your university, by any chance? This would be the ideal place to submit that idea to the vote. If you don't, well, you'll need to organise yourselves and signal other students the good old-fashioned way mayhap: by setting placards to announce a general meeting meant to decide on a plan of action! You do need to stay together, or if you divide yourselves to leave the building and go on a picket line or to a protest, to set up a rendezvous point. Also please use Telegram rather than the usual networks, it's a lot safer.

Why not ask for Louis Boyard's help? He's not my favourite person in the world but political party members may help set you up with union leaders and strikers and give a hand in coordinating joint actions; and if I'm not mistaken, Boyard is something of a specialist in student matters...

[alexbkrieger13]

Hammarby players Vinberg, Jonna and Roddar about Rosengård's heavy uphill start of season

https://www.fotbollskanalen.se/damallsvenskan/bajenspelarna-reagerar-pa-rosengards-sasongsinledning-vill-inte-byta-skor/

The Bayern players react to Rosengård's season opening: "Don't want to change shoes"

Women's League1 hour

STOCKHOLM. Rosengård has had a difficult start to the season. It benefits the teams that want to fight at the top. - It's a nice feeling that we get points and the expected top teams lose, says Jonna Andersson. 

Hammarby has taken all nine points over three rounds. At the same time, top-seeded Kristianstad and BK Häcken have lost points initially.  

But FC Rosengård has had the worst start. The most champion has only managed to get one point over three rounds - that after the cross against Piteå in the season opener was followed by two losses.  

After the loss against Djurgården, it was a self-critical Malmö team that met the media.  

- I'm empty, that's probably the right word. It's hard to put the feelings into words, but what we're performing right now is not us and I can't say what it is, but something is not right, said sports manager Therese Sjögran.  

But not everyone is equally disappointed by Rosengård's difficult start to the season - the teams that are expected to fight at the top were anything but sour faces.   

- You are shocked that they took a point in three games. That even Djurgården wins against Rosengård says something about how they are right now. It's been three games and you can't draw too many conclusions but they've been up against opposition where you expect them to pick up one or even three points. I don't suffer with them but I feel sorry for them, says Matilda Vinberg.  

Could it be in any way positive for you that it is more difficult for other top teams? - It is positive. It shows that any team can beat anyone. Rosengård took SM gold last year and are reigning champions who are expected to be at the top, but the fact that they are third last right now shows that anyone can beat anyone. It shows that Rosengård is not like Barcelona, ​​it shows that you can beat Rosengård and other teams too. 

Even Jonna Andersson agrees that it is positive, but that you mainly focus on yourself and that you need to continue focusing on your own game.  

- It's a nice feeling that we get points and the expected top teams lose. It is clear that we can think it is nice, but it is important that we perform and get the points we need. For us, it's the focus on our game and our points. It's clear that you want to start with a lot of points, but three rounds of the women's league have passed, it's not over yet, but all the focus is on us, she says and continues:  

- They have had tough matches and if there are a few setbacks it can be difficult to get out of it, then you have to get out of it. I think they can turn it around, but if you want to be there and fight at the top, you have to score points. 

Julia Roddar:  

- It's a tough start and I haven't seen the performances, but from what you've read, they haven't played their football. You don't want to change shoes with them right now. We focus on our performance and not what other teams are doing. It is nothing we value if they have had a worse start, then the season is long and it will probably be a tight top. Although they had a rough start, it can turn around just as quickly, they've just been having a hell of a time right now. 

[southslates]

god that zk / d*rkalina post reminds me of why i left that fandom, i really hate how you can’t simply say you don’t like something without a bunch of people jumping on your back accusing you of ‘policing’ them or smth like how is me personally thinking something is gross affecting you? idk. esp since i’m black and they go doubly hard after me if i so much as imply that i don’t like something specifically because of racism / misogynoir.

it’s like when some atla fans get pissed off that not everyone likes aang. like he was never my favorite. after b3 / comics i actively dislike him. but every time i say i don’t like him i’m a monster who bullies 12 y/o and hates ‘non dramatic’ ships. like no, i… simply just do not like him. i never came for you. i just said i don’t like him and his (lack of) character development imo.

sorry for ranting in your inbox i am just sick of being demonized for not liking things by the so called ‘you do you’ crowd. ironically i feel like those white ‘fandom old’ types target people just as much as those they say they despise sometimes :/

right and the most annoying thing is that they claim they're all for you do you, but there's a difference between acknowledging something is unhealthy BUT fictional and romanticizing something that is unhealthy? some people don't seem to draw the line...and like i guess it's "you do you" and that's their business, but if we're going to state our opinions and accept that everyone's opinion is valid as long as they don't infringe upon other's opinions, then like....you can still be criticized

sorry you've dealt with misogynoir and racism in fandom, it really is sad how such a safe place ends up being a microcosm of the world that sometimes even amplifies its worst aspects in very insidious ways, because you leave your guard down when you're in fandom, you assume it's a safe space, and then...

i've always said i never dislike ships because of ships, but because of shippers. i loved darklina and i thought the dynamic was so cool to explore (as i said i've written several fics, like the first was when i was thirteen) but then the way i was harassed on twitter for disliking how people compared it to kanej in some form...ruined the ship for me. like, i never said don't ship it? i basically always said that darklina has a cool dynamic to explore but that i didn't want it to be canon because that is the normalization of abuse in its canonical interpretation. maybe there is a world where it could have been done and it being canon would not have been a bad impression on thirteen year old girls like me, the first time i read the grisha trilogy. but well, it isn't this one. i was there and i wish malina was better in the books lol so i would have found darklina less appealing.

but yes with the aang thing, too! i think the "you do you" anti harassment crowd has its extremes, especially when they defend racist and problematic behavior towards real life individuals in fandom as on the same tier of fictional interaction, especially because this defined "harassment" is not people venting on their accounts without instigating discourse. people will always have their opinions.

zk fandom has had a lot of issues with big name white fans conflating real problematic behavior within the fandom with general proship harassment. it's what drove me out of the fandom last year and i pray it will not happen again because it really really bothered me at the time

but anon i do empathize so so much with you <3 sucks that a supposed safe space like fandom still has so many complications--i just want to do my own thing, and that includes hating on things, in peace ✌️