#it doesnt make sense for everything to be attributed to one when it isnt fitting

[whateverthought]

Personally, I think 'the Prince That Was Promised' and Azor Ahai is about more than 1 person. I'd even go so far as to say its about all 3 of them. If the point is that prophecies are self-fulfilling and subject to interpretation, then how far of a stretch is it to believe people of the past would assume it was all about one person when it wasn't actually? To think it would be more believable that everything is the act of one hero than a group of scenes that actually just belong in the same time frame

[alicentsgf]

working on the basis jackie and shaunas relationship has always been blatantly and very deliberately homoerotic and that they were both silently habouring feelings (which i do), i find the rabbit motif even more interesting.

its been said before but the rabbit motif isnt so much representative of jackie as it is representative of the false version of jackie. her own parents didnt know her, her teammates didnt, even shauna didnt fully know her, etc, but thats not by accident, jackie simply didnt make herself easy to know. the girl looks miserable every time we see her alone in the pilot, but she pulls on a mask for others. for jeff. for shauna. we see her seemingly have a crisis over sleeping with her boyfriend and then she gets in the car with her best friend and buries it all, not letting shauna know shes struggling. starts talking about losing her virginity to him like its no big deal, like its what she wants, when its pretty obvious to both shauna and us as the audience that it isnt.

we later find out from the meat shed conversations that shauna knew about jackie's struggles. deep down she knew, even though they didnt discuss it, she saw jackie was lying about her relationship. but shauna has never been a good communicator and also perhaps was too afraid of upsetting/losing jackie to have an honest conversation with her. and if shauna knew that jackie was hiding things from her, obviously that causes resentment in someone like shauna. shes irrational, reacts to percieved rejection in unhealthy ways, and this is her best friend whos lying to her. something shauna sees as a form of rejection.

the first act of violence we see from shauna in the show is her adult self killing the rabbit. it cuts to this directly after we see her sleeping with jeff in the teen timeline and i dont think its as simple as parralleling two acts against jackie. like maybe its foreshadowing jackies death, aka that shauna sleeping with jeff will ultimately lead to it, but given that we've been shown time and time again how rabbits are mistakenly attributed to jackie, it could be something else instead. if the rabbit is representative of jackies perfect, manicured facade, then having sex with jeff and killing the rabbit are one and the same. shauna gains control. she takes all the power out of jackie's facade by sleeping with jeff. ruining the perfect lie. which makes her actual objective clear —

she hates the fake exterior jackie maintained. her adult self literally murders it. she is desperate for jackie to be truthful with her. to confess. be open and vulnerable. and as if that desire wasnt homoerotically charged enough, their entire conversation about jeff later in season 1 furthers it; jackie saying she should have said i love you back the day before they left, saying she shouldnt have made "him" wait, saying she just wanted it to be perfect, all fits within the circumstances of jackie and shaunas relationship as well. jackie didnt say i love you back thay day, she did make shauna wait (for jackie to be honest with her), she was too fixated on some perfect ideal to share her true feelings with shauna. i think its relevant that another big way the rabbit motif resurfaces is as a mask that melissa wears. like... a literal mask. worn when she tries to kill shauna and cant because she does love shauna, despite how badly she doesnt want to.

and for me the conversation about jeff, jackies struggles, everything about jackies character, if we put it all together, hardly makes any sense at all without accepting that jackie was in love with shauna. like yes it can be explained away, because of course it can, but does any of it actually add to the story? why was it included? if jackie wasnt, there is no obvious reason for the focus on it. why do we see her express her worry that she'll die and someone else will be jeffs first? just so we can see shauna feel guilty? the framing of the scene makes it so obvious this is about far more than that. and then jackie does die and someone else is shaunas first.

shauna is the only one who knew jackie didnt like rabbits. aka shauna was the only one who even came close to knowing the real jackie. but one thing jackie would always put up a facade for with shauna was when she'd talk about jeff. she didnt love him, barely even liked him, and shauna knows that. we see her confusion when jackie says she should have said i love you back.

shauna killing the rabbit then becomes very specifically about her killing that lie. the jeff lie. just like her having sex with him is. she wants control, she wants honesty, she wants an "i love you". she wants the lie jackie was telling her dead, but she also EATS it. she consumes it. accepts it. makes it part of her. never actually confronts jackie on it. eating the rabbit, making her family secretly eat it, as a metaphor for both her and them accepting the lie that their family is based on. a marriage she got into out of "guilt and shame" because she was in love with her best friend and her best friend loved her back and on some subconcious level shauna has always known that and cant face it, didnt dare make jackie face it either. i think any true conscious realisation of it would kill shauna. it honestly might be what eventually kills her. or rather, it might be what she has to face at the end. because if we're talking about things coming "full circle", as things often do in this show, then shaunas story would have to end with jackie and the secrets they kept from each other in that car in the pilot.

[archer3-13]

FEH Villains Ranked

from best to worst, excluding book 4 cause its still ongoing

lif: genuinely surprised me by being an alfonse with pathos. well he started book 3 as a kinda generic number 2 type, the revelation of his identity as alfonse (though rather obvious at that point) as well as his goal of essentially destroying other worlds as a penance to restore his own is both suitably threatening and tragic. Creating that sense of pathos i mentioned that works so well for him, especially when hes shown to still be a kind person at heart thats been pushed into such horrific actions because of the devastation he had to endure. Especially when you consider that hes carrying the weapon that could kill hel with him which, although kinda lazy that he just has it, is a) a hel of a lot less contrived then anything book 2 pulled off and b) further deepens that sense of pathos when we consider that not only is it a memento of ‘player san’ and presumably everyone else hes lost but that it can also represent, in a way, a symbol of his own failure of will and bowing the knee to hel. Him prioritizing his own happiness and fulfillment in the form of hel resurrecting his world over the good of the ‘fe multiverse’. Point being, its a complexity of character that I honestly wish we got to see more of, and one I really wasn’t expecting from fe heroes given its track record. you’ll see what i mean down the road.

hel: well not terribly complex in motivation, she basically just wants to kill everything to increase her own power, she gets points for a strong presentation and utilization within the story book 3 creates. The limitations on her insta death power being kinda silly aside, though gustavs gambit to circumvent that i honestly really like more so then alfonses rules lawyering, the overhanging presence she has in the lives of book 3′s characters works really well and the pressure to defeat her because of her effectively endless legions works better as an overhanging threat anyways. When I say presentation though I mean more so in how her words, actions, and motivation intersect because well her words on the face of it have the usual villain posturing, her motivation and actions (such as her relation to eir and her generals, and the world she rules over and created) creates an interesting intersection where one can argue that her posturing words are empty of any true feeling. Shes cold and lifeless like the dead she rules and the world she creates, those around her are simply tools to an end but hardly in a cackling manner and more so in the unthinking manner one treats a toothpick. she gets angry or shocked but even then its in a muted manner, almost performing the emotions rather then truly feeling them. Hel lives in an unchanging world, a stillness brought on by the finality of death, and in a way one can argue that its her unspoken desire to spread that stillness, that perfect unchanging world she controls, to every world. Like lif, its a degree of complexity that I wish we got to see more of, especially in her case, and its something i honestly wasnt expecting from heroes.

helbindi: solely because the man goes through a lot of shit, and is an effective portrayal of a sympathetic villain. Hes effectively a camus if a camus was foul mouthed and more thuggish and that works for him, and is rather endearing in its own way when he acts concerned for his little sister and does the ‘im a thug who hugs kittens when no ones looking’ routine which i like when its done well. point being, he could have been a generic thug but hes a lot more interesting for not being one. However, his general pointlessness to the story, aside from giving us an indication that shock of shocks surtrs a shitty king and an excuse to escort ylgir around places who also does jack shit in the story... heroes is always going to suffer from having to compress its story telling but that fact they waste so much time with helbindi and ylgir and hrud when so much of what they do is either unnecessary to the story or themes present in book 2 or could have been given to other characters and make those characters better for it... helbindi gets to be up here for sympathy points and favoritism, but i am stretching here for ya mate.

thrasir: stronger character wise then helbindi, an interesting relation to lif of enemies turned into close friends over a shared trauma and servitude, plays into some of the same strengths of hel and lif that make them so engaging, yadda, yadda, yadda. So why is she below helbindi? because she doesnt get to do anything, and only starts to get interesting right before her death. If she had been given a bigger role comparable to lif, or just more time to stew in her own motivations she’d easily surpass helbindi. its also not helped that thrasirs own desire to resurrect her brother is similar to veronicas pre established selfishness, which isnt as strong a contrast as lifs selfishness and guilt against alfonses character. Her relation to lif does hint at a stronger sense of kidness and morality instilled within her because of that relation, which is interesting and would make a strong contrast against veronica, but again we get like five seconds of it before shes killed off and then a little more of it again at the end. Deserved more time on screen then she got, and would have probably been number 2 here if she had gotten it. 

veronica: bratty child becomes evil sorcerer emperor, more at 11. I like the concept of veronica, its something fes never really touched on much aside from maybe a little bit with julius with his more childish antics. Veronica however cranks that up a lot more, shes impatient and gets bored easily, she wants more friends but in a selfish ‘friend is someone who does everything I want right?’ way, shes emblas ruler and she has the emotional maturity of an evil 10 year old and i just kinda like it. Especially since she tempers it with an air of sophistication and intelligence, much like the classic evil sorcerers fe loves to utilize in villain roles, and it helps balance out the bratty child from being too annoying in the villain role. It helps lend a sense of her trying to present herself as a grown up for the respect and authority that brings, well simultaneously maintain all the perks of being a kid who gets everything she wants. It’s a shame then that the narrative keeps sidelining her, either by focusing on other villains, her god damn brother getting in the fucking way, or with the overhanging implications of magic dragon possession being the root cause of her behavior. I can forgive the magic dragon possession though since that is an fe staple and could works towards more interesting character aspects rather then undercutting her. Regardless, she sure is great when things are actually about her, and i really wish things would get back to being about her.

Laegjarn: solely here because she loves her sister, shes rather flat as a character otherwise. It would have been one thing if she displayed a sense of brutality instilled in her by a childhood being raised by surtr, only dropping the shell when it came to her sister and reigning herself in for the sake of that one familial bond she treasures... instead shes just kinda nice and loves her sister, and yet still works for surtr for some fucking reason. @agoddamn and @ezralahm mention an aspect of learned helplessness to xanders character in fates that people tend to gloss over (heaven knows why, cause its fairly in your face even in the english translation), and that should be something that comes across in laegjarn, but its doesnt really. not as much as it should anyways. Another victim of book 2′s pointless writing.

loki: evil sexy lady with big boobies and a one leg cutout tights pants thing. heres someone who can transform into anyone, and yet she never really does anything with it. oh she does ‘things’, just not things that have much point to them, or really feel like they fit into some larger scheme. she’d be right at home as a recurring villain in an episodic story, coming up with some inane scheme for todays episode that gets foiled and she gets sent ‘blasting off again’. I dont necessarily hate the sexy seductress character, the noire bombshells and the like, they can be fun when done well. loki just doesnt do it well, coming off as more grating and annoying then tempting honestly, and as a villain she lacks anykind of actual menace. My feelings on her are similar to my feelings on aversa honestly, heres someone who should be so cool and threatening, a real menace to the heroes using their skills and abilities behind the scenes to move threats against the heroes, never taking to the field unless they can benefit from it and have an assured chance of victory or safety... but then they never actually do anything, as any of the actions possibly attributable to them either happen offscreen or probably would have happened without them doing anything. Loki and aversa could have stayed home twiddling their thumbs and nothing would change, and thats the real shame about them. Doesn’t help they aren’t particularly fun or entertaining as villains either due to lackluster writing.

surtr: garon 2.0, but with even less complexity. Well garon may have been a blatantly evil prick, he at least had backstory that provoked some degree of complexity and even sympathy, both to him and those hurt by his evil dragon possession personality change. Surtr lacks even that, acting more like a petty thug given way to much power then an imposing ruler. He garon without the backstory complexity, and in a way hes walhart without the air of regality and charisma that helped elevate walhart from being god awful in his own right. And well it could have been interesting if the story made any attempts to comment on that or work it into a central story theme or flow of some sort, it doesnt really do that and instead treats him as if he has and indeed deserves the same credibility and impression walhart or garon or any of the other fire emblem emperor kings have left. But the game doesnt ever actually work for that with him. Hes the emeperor, so he automatically deserves respect as a villain. and thats... so typical of book 2′s writing.

laevatein: shes boring as sin, even with her relation to her sister and the tragedy of losing her. Like her sister, she would have benefited from an impression of learned helplessness but the game never really bothers with it. moving on because i can barely give a shit about her.

bruno: this mother fucker... an annoying detraction that overtakes veronicas spotlight and screentime, an excuse for alfonse wangst that never really lands, pointless and useless... the benefit of book 2 and 3 so far has been his reduced importance, but i fully expect him to come roaring back to steal veronicas position once the story shifts back to an area she should be the focus of. the only thing he has going for him is the sense of a camus struggling with dragon possession but thats more so used for alfonse wangst then it is for anything constructive. What do i mean by alfonse wangst? I mean angst that really serves no narrative purpose then for the sake of unnecessary melodrama, as opposed to informing us anything about the characters or themes of the story. he makes veronica look worse, his drama with alfonse is a waste of time, and he really provides nothing else then a recurring boss fight and get out of jail free card for the story. I’m putting him below laevatein because well i dont give much of a shit about her, she atleast doesnt actively annoy me and still had the potential for something. Bruno however? the story would be better off without him. So fuck him.

[mentalanalyzer]

Unadulterated Uncensored Bigotry

Maybe it’s because I’m tired, maybe it’s because I’m pissed at the world around me, but this has been on my mind for quite some time. Does your ethnicity define you? Are they ingrained in your genes? Nature vs. Nurture? While I find many parts of my personality are due to the American environment I have been brought up in, there are aspects of my personality, that I only see in Persians, despite the lack of that upbringing. Aspects that I only see shared amongst those back in Iran. How could have such aspects of my personality if I’ve never been exposed to it? And that brings me to the topic of the day. Profiling. 

This is for me, my ideas, this page is seen by me (I don’t even know why I get followers when I post once in a blue moon). I will not use politically correct terminology, because my terminology comes from a universal language, and that is the fact people are defined by their appearance. Black is black, not african american. Everyone in the world calls African Americans black people. Most consider Asians almond eyed people. This is how people are defined. I will be using generalization and stereotypes, and yes there are exceptions to everything, but generalization exist for a reason. Observations are not inherently racist, unless used as such. I have nothing against races of people, there are aspects of each culture I dislike and like. However, as stated before, people do seem to be potentially defined genetically by their culture. Without further ado. 

We shall start with Persians. Never have I met a group of individuals so arrogant with such a lack of humility. They are smart, crafty, intelligent, even attractive and physically fit. And they know it. And yet, we always fall. Because we are always arrogant, always thinking we’re better than everyone. We have no sense of humility, doing whatever we want with no regards to others and the consequences. Our society always rises because of our innate abilities, but always falls due to the flaws inherent in our personality. Our women, vain. They also have intelligence, and beauty, and they know it. Never have I met a group more vain than Persian women. Always striving to better than other women, insecurity rampant, and always jealous. Persian women have the most potential in all races of women, and yet I despise them the most out of all races of women. Their intelligence is rotted away with their obsession over looks. Their definition of power defined by their man. They are dominant, but become submissive as they are unable to do anything without their man. The women is battling her man, other women, and herself. A war on 3 fronts, is a war you cannot win. And it is for this reason, they always lose. The worst part is, Persians know this. This upsets me the most. They are aware of their arrogance and intelligence, and yet do nothing about. Like an alcoholic who refuses to quit. 

Asians, smart crafty devils, with an absolute lack of compassion for other races and usually severe racism as well. Robots? Not quite. Robots would be indifferent, Asians are not indifferent. Similar to Persians in intelligence and their understanding of it, but without the arrogance. The feeling of superiority, masked by humility, by sub-conscious racism (giving them the benefit of the doubt). They’re quiet, and always make themselves seem less than they are, but are always planning to best their competition. Drive and determination, but with a flawed premise. No love to bring others up with them, but rather leave everyone in the dust. To use the common man for self use, and make sure he doesn’t get to the same level. A comrade has no meaning. The women are the same, but their disdain for others is even worse. The perfect counter-part as they support and go hand in hand with their man. However, often times, they find themselves weak against their man. They are driven and determined, but as soon as they find an Asian man who stands to oppose them, they crumble. As if admitting superiority. See that’s the entire problem here with Asians, the concept of superiority. Persians are always brought down by our stupidity induced by our arrogance, but Asians always see themselves as superior as above. As soon as that image is crushed, they crumble. As if being below anyone is the realization of failure. This is what I mean by a flawed premise. 

Black people. Incredibly emotional, and lazy. Quick to anger, rash, lashes out easily. Uses great effort to build something, only to quickly destroy it. Hardworker...and yet I said lazy? Works hard, but not smart. Not that they can’t, just that they don’t want to. Life is hard, and yet if it’s simple, it’s not too bad. Yet complains that it’s not better, that they want it to be better, and yet doesn’t want to put the effort to make it better. Living in dreams, but never wants to make them a reality. An uphill battle that they can fight, but just that they don’t want to. Let someone else fight it for them, let them reap the rewards. Only fighting when they become emotional, but fighting out of anger, is a short fight. The fuse is only so long, and after it burns, back to mediocrity. Mediocrity isn’t a problem, if they didn’t find it a problem. Like a slouched spine. Works hard to keep you upright, but never quite does the job right. The women are similar to the women. Unsuprisingly, the women actually have more drive than the men. A culture so driven by emotions, it makes sense that the gender with more emotion is more driven. Dominant, aggressive, demanding....yet with all things extreme, easily broken. Unlike Persians with it being a fight against others and their own insecurities, and Asians with it being a fight against superiority and intelligence, with black people, it’s the fight of emotions. Don’t attack a black womens confidence or intelligence, attack her heart. That’s the walls weak point. 

Arabians, all the bravado of Persians, with none of the attributes. Take the arrogance of Persians, and take away the craft and intelligence, and you get Arabians. There is a difference though, see Persians arrogance is against everyone, including fellow Persians. This causes conflict amongst Persians, which is why we are always bringing ourselves down. Arabians create a heirachy, with arrogance designated towards others that are not Arabian. Targeted arrogance you might say. A shared ideology and common belief, is all it takes to becomes uneasy friends with Arabians. You are part of the “cool kids table” now as they say. They have no superior quality outside of numbers and co-operations (which may be a quality in and of itself). One of the most unified cultures out there. This is what makes extremism so likely however. A unification of simple ideals is all that is needed to make one part of the cool kids and having disdain and arrogance towards everyone else. But who defines the cool kids? This is the infighting for Arabians, and makes it so they always form unified groups fighting unified groups; whereas for Persians it’s always a free for all. The women are basically the same. Lack of intelligence, lack of looks, and yet vain and demanding. Inferior in every way to Persian women. I’d feel bad for their conditions, if it wasn’t the fact that they treat the men just as badly as the men treat the women. They’re submissive state is only due to the fear induced by the mens aggression. Against any other physically submissive group, they would dominate. There are other cultures with men physically dominant (like black men), but they only tolerate Arabian men. 

Indians. What is there to say? Racist, sexist, aggressive but weak? Out of all the groups, Indian men are the most sexist and treat women the worst. They make Arabian men look like angels. They have an inferiority complex, that they take out on the weaker groups due to lacking the balls to take someone on their own size. Their cowardness is unmatched in the world. Like the Asians, they too have a heirachy, and they strive to be the top. Unlike Asians though, they have compassion, and guilt. They will screw you over to get to the top, but they will feel bad about it (doesn’t mean they’ll do anything about it). Like Asians, they are quiet, but not out of disdain and contempt, but out of fear. They don’t bring themselves down like Asians (strategic), but rather only see themselves as lower due to the inferiority complex. This doesn’t mean they lack drive however, as they will still compete to be the top of their heirachy. Take the intelligence of Persians, but without the arrogance, and add the heart the Asians are missing, and you get Indians. Indian women on the other hand, are incredibly racist. The potential to be smart, but kept ignorant by their Indian men. Demanding, aggressive, insulting. Whereas Arabian women are physically abusive, Indian women are mentally abusive. They are like a peach, soft on the outside, but hard on the inside. 

Finally....the white man. Individualism as an ethnicity. Congregation by like minds for a greater purpose, but for everyone else below them, they are tools. The white man will not come above others like Asians, but will bring others down below him. The white man doesn’t look to live like the black man, or to congregate like the Arabians, or look to fullfill a superiority complex like the Asians, or to fight off an inferiority complex either. The white man looks to control for the aim of bettering his life. Arrogant, but aware enough of that arrogance to curb it to the point it is still deterimental, but not as severe as Persians. As for the women, they are used as tools just as everyone else for the white man. The women are emotional, ignorant, arrogant, with little drive and purpose outside of be the useful tool of the white man. A blanks slate....literally. Easily influenced and written, by the white man, or other cultures. This makes it so the white women is able to congregate more easily with other cultures; if the other cultures racism allows. 

Now, this may all appear negative, and it may appear I just hate all cultures, but that is just not the case. As is with everything, each culture has it’s positives and negatives. 

Persians have so much potential. Their men are smart, intelligent, and can become experts in any field (as many are). Their women have the most potential out of any group. Looks and brains, can’t beat them. Asians are also smart and intelligent, always raising the bar, always increasing the competition. The women as well. Smart and determined, but humble and quiet. As long as they are empowered, they can achieve just as much if not more than the man can. Everyone can learn from black people. From all the groups, I love being in the company of this group the most. They have....soul.. would be the best way to put it. They are what it means to be human, to express yourself, and to live. Arabians demonstrate the power of Unity and tolerance. With their empire being one of the most peaceful and prosperious for it’s residents. The ability to set the petty aside and focus on the main ideals that unite all of us. Their women demonstrate how despite being oppressed and put down, you can always keep that drive and determination to be better. That no one can stop you. Indians are the nicest people in existence. Bettering their neighbor, and always trying to live with love and compassion. Their women are in fact the reasons this is the case, with mothers who teach the importance of loving oneself and ones neighbors. The white man, the centerpiece of all of this. Having the potential to unify all the groups, and have them cordially work with one another. While Persian woman are born with the most potential, white women are designed with the most potential in mind. The blank slate, combined with beauty and grace, enables them to create their own personality, and to be influenced by other cultures. Allowed to fluorish on their own, the white woman is one of the purest in all the groups. 

[xielians]

idk i think i want to gush about princess principal for a bit like

i havent been feeling like watching anime or much of anything at all? like the drive isnt there at all (thanks hxh) and even when i do watch, im not invested in whats happening at all? but then the first ep, no, probably by mid-episode i was hooked? like, i actually want to marathon it omg

i like the clothes a lot. the visuals and character designs. some people say theyre too moe / cute for the tone of the story -- them being spies and the ending of ep1 is edgy and stuff? but i thought it was a really great exploration of ange’s character and everything? and its really impactful for a first ep which is really great??

the use of non-chronological episode order also really helps in engaging interest. ep1 was a great setup of the general setting and who our main characters are & their personalities too, and what they usually do. and then there are questions as to how things end up this way, and why are spies students in a school and all that, which makes us wonder and i thought they will explain stuff through flashbacks but no, they mess up the episode order and ep2 is the true ep1 chronologically and i just feel like it’s such a great treat bc there lies the start of it all as well as a freaking twist that, imo is really well-executed like holy shit. they didnt slam the fact into our face or play it up or like i guess, spoonfeed it to us but it felt so natural and the story and dialogue really flows imo? 

i just really really like the directing a lot. that juxtaposition of ange in disguise in ep2 and then a very mysterious conversation between charlotte and beatrice which made me go like ???? bc what and how? there’s nothing that gave away that ange is a ‘demon’. which they offer an explanation by the end of the ep but just i really like it bc they make you think.

the subsequent episodes basically gives us insight to their characters, and they also have an interesting thing where they only explain the phenomenon after some episodes like the ‘c-ball’, where we see what it does, and understand that it has a limit but they dont shove it in our faces likE ‘show, don’t tell’ done wonderfully? there are other things they showed but didnt tell like ange’s signaling as communication that i just really really love like HOLY SHIT

and they also put in parallels that you didnt notice the first round bc it’s a piece of information that they didnt tell you until like ep8. i cried when i recognised the conversation in the flashback in ep8. the conversation in the flashback is a mirror image of the one in ep2, at the time before charlotte even knew who ange is. in ep2, theres a strange weight on the same conversation but given ange’s task, i simply attributed it to one of her ploys to get closer to charlotte but it feels so good knowing theres actually meaning behind the weird conversation.

most of the episodes i think are pretty standalone in the sense that theyre unrelated to each other, especially ep1. it doesnt have the same weight / importance if it’s not ep1 -- ie the introductory episode. but through the use of messing up the episode order, it makes us more interested in piecing the world in the story and the characters together too. of course other shows do try to develop / explore the characters too, but non-chronological meant that they can give us literally like a single meaningful line, pique our curiosity and then develop it later. as is dorothy and chise’s conversation about being honest for once. (and now im crying again bc in dorothy’s ep, look who didnt mind when beato actually asked if its alright for her to be seeing this. and they still remained friends in the end im just aaaaaaaaaaa)

i might also be highly biased bc kajiura, but i really love the sound and music for this? ive literally been waiting for kajiura to make tracks like these again and she did and hearing those western instruments and even the trumpet in some parts was just <3 her overpowering vocal tracks isnt used in this but im so glad they werent bc 1. im sick of them 2. they dont fit 3. theyre starting to sound the same. sorry kajiura-- but i really love princess principal’s ost. reminded me of cosette and even a few tracks in trc like 1 & 0 city lmao

honestly im worried bc like what if the show ends up going downhill bc now plot is happening and idk how theyll handle it. ep11 was a shocker and im in pain bc im worried for both ange and charlotte, and like!! charlotte doesnt have the actual spy training and WHAT ABOUT THE C-BALL, WHAT IF THEY FIND OUT AND IM JUST AAAAAA. the conclusion is really important to me, and they can make or break the show for me, but from what i see so far, i dont think they’ll disappoint me.

im just thinking about this show a lot bc i finally caught up ahsifadjgkadj

[apsbicepstraining]

The brand-new status badge: it’s not what you waste – it’s how hard “youre working”

The rich used to show how much we are able to spend on acts they didnt necessitate. Today, a public display of productivity is the new mark of class power

Almost 120 years ago, during the first Gilded Age, sociologist Thorstein Veblen coined the term conspicuous consumption. He used it to refer to wealthy person flaunting their money through wasteful spending. Why buy a thousand-dollar clothing when a hundred-dollar one suffices the same serve? The answer, Veblen answered, was ability. The rich said their dominance by showing how much fund we are able to burn on acts they didnt need.

While radical at the time, Veblens observation seems obvious now. In the interfere decades, conspicuous consumption has already become deeply embedded in the quality of American capitalism. Our new Gilded Age will be still more Veblenian than the last. Todays captains of manufacture broadcast their social post with private islands and superyachts while the president of the United States includes nearly everything he owns in gold.

But the acquisition of insanely expensive stocks isnt the only practice that modern upper-class project dominance. More lately, another form of status flaunt has risen. In the new Gilded Age, relating oneself as a member of the ruling class doesnt just require conspicuous consumption. It expects noticeable production .

If conspicuous consumption commits the praise of luxury, noticeable production concerns the worship of strive. It isnt about how much you invest. Its about how hard “youre working”.

Nowhere is the cult of conspicuous product more visible than among Americas CEOs. Todays top executives are committed work-worshippers, virtually to the point of wickednes. Apple CEO Tim Cook told Timethat he begins his era at 3.45 am. General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt told Fortunethat he has worked 100 -hour workweeks for 24 times. Not to be exceed, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer told Bloomberg Newsthat she used to work 130 -hour workweeks. And so on.

It must be said that these individuals arent working out of necessity. The vast majority of Americans drive because their survival depends on a payment. By distinguish, Mayer, Immelt and Cook could withdraw tomorrow and still live extremely comfortably for the rest of their lives, with plenty left over to pass on to the next generation their collective net worth is almost $1.5 bn.

But conspicuous yield isnt about congregating ones information necessities. Its about the public display of productivity as a badge of class influence. In an era of extreme inequality, elites need to demonstrate to themselves and others that they deserve to own orderings of quantity more money than everyone else. Cook is nearly 500,000% richer than the average American but he wakes up at 3.45 in the morning. This is the hallmark of conspicuous production: it justifies the existence of an imperial class by showcasing their superhuman levels of industry.

The irony is that grueling workweeks arent alone an society phenomenon. Far from it. Many less fortunate Americans perform same feats of productivity, although they have fewer incentives and opportunities to advertise it. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute found that Americans proletarians labor significantly more hours than they did a few decades ago specially ladies, black people and the poorest of the poor. A black wife in the bottom fifth of earners operated 349 more hours in 2015 than she would have in 1979. The reason is simple: wages have just budged since the 1970 s, which means todays proletarians have to work harder to make ends meet.

Compare the woman toiling long hours for minimum wage with the woman toiling the same hours for $30 m a year. One is trying to avoid starvation and homelessness; the other is broadcasting her influence and cachet. The proletariat of the latter isnt necessary in the normal sense but neither is a ten-thousand-dollar handbag. If conspicuous consumption celebrates gratuitous spending, noticeable production celebrates gratuitous acting. Both convey preeminence by making a sight of excess.

In the first Gilded Age, plethora was like a woman in pearls alongside the status of women in rags. In the second largest Gilded Age, it looks like a woman who works hundred-hour workweeks but doesnt requirement the money, alongside the status of women who works just as hard but can just continue a ceiling over her head.

Yet noticeable product takes many forms. Even people who cant afford to retire tomorrow going to be able engage in some form of it and experience a part of the elite status that it awards. Veblens most provocative proof was that the wastefulness of the rich inspired esteem , not anger. Other class tried to emulate it as best we are able to: middle-class beings couldnt live like a railroad baron, but we are able to indulge in little indulgences to entreat up their social endure. The same principle applies to noticeable creation. Most Americans will never attain the decadent elevations of CEO-style hyperwork, but they can still make a fetish of productivity.

Peak productivity: engineering has allowed us to turn our lives into a dashboard of data that can be monitored and weighed. Photo: Alamy Stock Photo

One way is to turn your holiday into proletariat by working on yourself. The most obvious sample is effort, which has acquired a addictive attribute among members of the urban professional class. The neighborhoods where theyre likely to live are littered with outlet fitness studios such as SoulCycle and indulgence gyms such as Equinox. These are the locations where the labor of self-improvement and self-purification continue long after the labor required to make ones legislations expirations. And they exist alongside a complementary ecosystem of juice tables and organic food stores, where one procures the proper fuel to influence the production processes the self.

The stated conclude for all the committee is health. But the amount of duration that many better-off Americans invest exercising far exceeds what is required to be healthy. Thats because the intricate requires of todays fitness and nutritional regimens arent ultimately about wellbeing. Theyre designed to express class ability. In the second largest Gilded Age, you can typically calculate person or persons charge bracket by their physique class is literally inscribed on their own bodies. Richer bodies arent simply thinner but precise muscled in all sorts of ways. They reflect an enormous and, strictly speaking, useless outlay of try. They personify work in excess of necessitate, signaling asset through wastefulness and apologizing ones control of it through the performance of personal virtue.

But you dont have to be a CEO or an affluent professional to partake in noticeable product. Technology has made it possible for everyone to see everything as a chance for productivity. You can measure your sleep, sex and paces with a Fitbit, your attractiveness with Tinder, your wittiness with Twitter, your notoriety with Facebook. You can alter your identity into a dashboard of data river that can be monitored, analyzed and optimized with the precision of an industrial process. You can alter your life into a factory and not only metaphorically. In creating yourself, you produce economic value for others. The hours you spend on these platforms may be unwaged, but they generate real income for the companies that own them.

This is the genius of noticeable production. It not only promotes a culture of overwork, it obliges our diminishing quantity of leisure time economically productive. There is no escape: either were working for the company or were working on ourselves, but were always cultivating. Eight hours for production, eight hours for remain, eight hours of what we will was the hymn of the employees who firstly demanded the eight-hour-day more than a century ago.Those marks dont make sense any more. Even our sleep is factored into our productivity score the entrepreneur of the self never gets to clock out.

Today, the old-fashioned slogan of the labor movement is just like utopian science fiction. Imagine a society that claimed so little of our strive. Reckon a macrocosm where the poorest of the poor didnt are now working so hard to exist, and the rich didnt have to work so hard to appear worthy of their capital, because rich and good didnt exist.

The post The brand-new status badge: it’s not what you waste – it’s how hard “youre working” appeared first on apsbicepstraining.com.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2uvllph via IFTTT

[apsbicepstraining]

The brand-new status badge: it’s not what you waste – it’s how hard “youre working”

The rich used to show how much we are able to spend on acts they didnt necessitate. Today, a public display of productivity is the new mark of class power

Almost 120 years ago, during the first Gilded Age, sociologist Thorstein Veblen coined the term conspicuous consumption. He used it to refer to wealthy person flaunting their money through wasteful spending. Why buy a thousand-dollar clothing when a hundred-dollar one suffices the same serve? The answer, Veblen answered, was ability. The rich said their dominance by showing how much fund we are able to burn on acts they didnt need.

While radical at the time, Veblens observation seems obvious now. In the interfere decades, conspicuous consumption has already become deeply embedded in the quality of American capitalism. Our new Gilded Age will be still more Veblenian than the last. Todays captains of manufacture broadcast their social post with private islands and superyachts while the president of the United States includes nearly everything he owns in gold.

But the acquisition of insanely expensive stocks isnt the only practice that modern upper-class project dominance. More lately, another form of status flaunt has risen. In the new Gilded Age, relating oneself as a member of the ruling class doesnt just require conspicuous consumption. It expects noticeable production .

If conspicuous consumption commits the praise of luxury, noticeable production concerns the worship of strive. It isnt about how much you invest. Its about how hard “youre working”.

Nowhere is the cult of conspicuous product more visible than among Americas CEOs. Todays top executives are committed work-worshippers, virtually to the point of wickednes. Apple CEO Tim Cook told Timethat he begins his era at 3.45 am. General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt told Fortunethat he has worked 100 -hour workweeks for 24 times. Not to be exceed, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer told Bloomberg Newsthat she used to work 130 -hour workweeks. And so on.

It must be said that these individuals arent working out of necessity. The vast majority of Americans drive because their survival depends on a payment. By distinguish, Mayer, Immelt and Cook could withdraw tomorrow and still live extremely comfortably for the rest of their lives, with plenty left over to pass on to the next generation their collective net worth is almost $1.5 bn.

But conspicuous yield isnt about congregating ones information necessities. Its about the public display of productivity as a badge of class influence. In an era of extreme inequality, elites need to demonstrate to themselves and others that they deserve to own orderings of quantity more money than everyone else. Cook is nearly 500,000% richer than the average American but he wakes up at 3.45 in the morning. This is the hallmark of conspicuous production: it justifies the existence of an imperial class by showcasing their superhuman levels of industry.

The irony is that grueling workweeks arent alone an society phenomenon. Far from it. Many less fortunate Americans perform same feats of productivity, although they have fewer incentives and opportunities to advertise it. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute found that Americans proletarians labor significantly more hours than they did a few decades ago specially ladies, black people and the poorest of the poor. A black wife in the bottom fifth of earners operated 349 more hours in 2015 than she would have in 1979. The reason is simple: wages have just budged since the 1970 s, which means todays proletarians have to work harder to make ends meet.

Compare the woman toiling long hours for minimum wage with the woman toiling the same hours for $30 m a year. One is trying to avoid starvation and homelessness; the other is broadcasting her influence and cachet. The proletariat of the latter isnt necessary in the normal sense but neither is a ten-thousand-dollar handbag. If conspicuous consumption celebrates gratuitous spending, noticeable production celebrates gratuitous acting. Both convey preeminence by making a sight of excess.

In the first Gilded Age, plethora was like a woman in pearls alongside the status of women in rags. In the second largest Gilded Age, it looks like a woman who works hundred-hour workweeks but doesnt requirement the money, alongside the status of women who works just as hard but can just continue a ceiling over her head.

Yet noticeable product takes many forms. Even people who cant afford to retire tomorrow going to be able engage in some form of it and experience a part of the elite status that it awards. Veblens most provocative proof was that the wastefulness of the rich inspired esteem , not anger. Other class tried to emulate it as best we are able to: middle-class beings couldnt live like a railroad baron, but we are able to indulge in little indulgences to entreat up their social endure. The same principle applies to noticeable creation. Most Americans will never attain the decadent elevations of CEO-style hyperwork, but they can still make a fetish of productivity.

Peak productivity: engineering has allowed us to turn our lives into a dashboard of data that can be monitored and weighed. Photo: Alamy Stock Photo

One way is to turn your holiday into proletariat by working on yourself. The most obvious sample is effort, which has acquired a addictive attribute among members of the urban professional class. The neighborhoods where theyre likely to live are littered with outlet fitness studios such as SoulCycle and indulgence gyms such as Equinox. These are the locations where the labor of self-improvement and self-purification continue long after the labor required to make ones legislations expirations. And they exist alongside a complementary ecosystem of juice tables and organic food stores, where one procures the proper fuel to influence the production processes the self.

The stated conclude for all the committee is health. But the amount of duration that many better-off Americans invest exercising far exceeds what is required to be healthy. Thats because the intricate requires of todays fitness and nutritional regimens arent ultimately about wellbeing. Theyre designed to express class ability. In the second largest Gilded Age, you can typically calculate person or persons charge bracket by their physique class is literally inscribed on their own bodies. Richer bodies arent simply thinner but precise muscled in all sorts of ways. They reflect an enormous and, strictly speaking, useless outlay of try. They personify work in excess of necessitate, signaling asset through wastefulness and apologizing ones control of it through the performance of personal virtue.

But you dont have to be a CEO or an affluent professional to partake in noticeable product. Technology has made it possible for everyone to see everything as a chance for productivity. You can measure your sleep, sex and paces with a Fitbit, your attractiveness with Tinder, your wittiness with Twitter, your notoriety with Facebook. You can alter your identity into a dashboard of data river that can be monitored, analyzed and optimized with the precision of an industrial process. You can alter your life into a factory and not only metaphorically. In creating yourself, you produce economic value for others. The hours you spend on these platforms may be unwaged, but they generate real income for the companies that own them.

This is the genius of noticeable production. It not only promotes a culture of overwork, it obliges our diminishing quantity of leisure time economically productive. There is no escape: either were working for the company or were working on ourselves, but were always cultivating. Eight hours for production, eight hours for remain, eight hours of what we will was the hymn of the employees who firstly demanded the eight-hour-day more than a century ago.Those marks dont make sense any more. Even our sleep is factored into our productivity score the entrepreneur of the self never gets to clock out.

Today, the old-fashioned slogan of the labor movement is just like utopian science fiction. Imagine a society that claimed so little of our strive. Reckon a macrocosm where the poorest of the poor didnt are now working so hard to exist, and the rich didnt have to work so hard to appear worthy of their capital, because rich and good didnt exist.

The post The brand-new status badge: it’s not what you waste – it’s how hard “youre working” appeared first on apsbicepstraining.com.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2uvllph via IFTTT

[apsbicepstraining]

The brand-new status badge: it’s not what you waste – it’s how hard “youre working”

The rich used to show how much we are able to spend on acts they didnt necessitate. Today, a public display of productivity is the new mark of class power

Almost 120 years ago, during the first Gilded Age, sociologist Thorstein Veblen coined the term conspicuous consumption. He used it to refer to wealthy person flaunting their money through wasteful spending. Why buy a thousand-dollar clothing when a hundred-dollar one suffices the same serve? The answer, Veblen answered, was ability. The rich said their dominance by showing how much fund we are able to burn on acts they didnt need.

While radical at the time, Veblens observation seems obvious now. In the interfere decades, conspicuous consumption has already become deeply embedded in the quality of American capitalism. Our new Gilded Age will be still more Veblenian than the last. Todays captains of manufacture broadcast their social post with private islands and superyachts while the president of the United States includes nearly everything he owns in gold.

But the acquisition of insanely expensive stocks isnt the only practice that modern upper-class project dominance. More lately, another form of status flaunt has risen. In the new Gilded Age, relating oneself as a member of the ruling class doesnt just require conspicuous consumption. It expects noticeable production .

If conspicuous consumption commits the praise of luxury, noticeable production concerns the worship of strive. It isnt about how much you invest. Its about how hard “youre working”.

Nowhere is the cult of conspicuous product more visible than among Americas CEOs. Todays top executives are committed work-worshippers, virtually to the point of wickednes. Apple CEO Tim Cook told Timethat he begins his era at 3.45 am. General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt told Fortunethat he has worked 100 -hour workweeks for 24 times. Not to be exceed, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer told Bloomberg Newsthat she used to work 130 -hour workweeks. And so on.

It must be said that these individuals arent working out of necessity. The vast majority of Americans drive because their survival depends on a payment. By distinguish, Mayer, Immelt and Cook could withdraw tomorrow and still live extremely comfortably for the rest of their lives, with plenty left over to pass on to the next generation their collective net worth is almost $1.5 bn.

But conspicuous yield isnt about congregating ones information necessities. Its about the public display of productivity as a badge of class influence. In an era of extreme inequality, elites need to demonstrate to themselves and others that they deserve to own orderings of quantity more money than everyone else. Cook is nearly 500,000% richer than the average American but he wakes up at 3.45 in the morning. This is the hallmark of conspicuous production: it justifies the existence of an imperial class by showcasing their superhuman levels of industry.

The irony is that grueling workweeks arent alone an society phenomenon. Far from it. Many less fortunate Americans perform same feats of productivity, although they have fewer incentives and opportunities to advertise it. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute found that Americans proletarians labor significantly more hours than they did a few decades ago specially ladies, black people and the poorest of the poor. A black wife in the bottom fifth of earners operated 349 more hours in 2015 than she would have in 1979. The reason is simple: wages have just budged since the 1970 s, which means todays proletarians have to work harder to make ends meet.

Compare the woman toiling long hours for minimum wage with the woman toiling the same hours for $30 m a year. One is trying to avoid starvation and homelessness; the other is broadcasting her influence and cachet. The proletariat of the latter isnt necessary in the normal sense but neither is a ten-thousand-dollar handbag. If conspicuous consumption celebrates gratuitous spending, noticeable production celebrates gratuitous acting. Both convey preeminence by making a sight of excess.

In the first Gilded Age, plethora was like a woman in pearls alongside the status of women in rags. In the second largest Gilded Age, it looks like a woman who works hundred-hour workweeks but doesnt requirement the money, alongside the status of women who works just as hard but can just continue a ceiling over her head.

Yet noticeable product takes many forms. Even people who cant afford to retire tomorrow going to be able engage in some form of it and experience a part of the elite status that it awards. Veblens most provocative proof was that the wastefulness of the rich inspired esteem , not anger. Other class tried to emulate it as best we are able to: middle-class beings couldnt live like a railroad baron, but we are able to indulge in little indulgences to entreat up their social endure. The same principle applies to noticeable creation. Most Americans will never attain the decadent elevations of CEO-style hyperwork, but they can still make a fetish of productivity.

Peak productivity: engineering has allowed us to turn our lives into a dashboard of data that can be monitored and weighed. Photo: Alamy Stock Photo

One way is to turn your holiday into proletariat by working on yourself. The most obvious sample is effort, which has acquired a addictive attribute among members of the urban professional class. The neighborhoods where theyre likely to live are littered with outlet fitness studios such as SoulCycle and indulgence gyms such as Equinox. These are the locations where the labor of self-improvement and self-purification continue long after the labor required to make ones legislations expirations. And they exist alongside a complementary ecosystem of juice tables and organic food stores, where one procures the proper fuel to influence the production processes the self.

The stated conclude for all the committee is health. But the amount of duration that many better-off Americans invest exercising far exceeds what is required to be healthy. Thats because the intricate requires of todays fitness and nutritional regimens arent ultimately about wellbeing. Theyre designed to express class ability. In the second largest Gilded Age, you can typically calculate person or persons charge bracket by their physique class is literally inscribed on their own bodies. Richer bodies arent simply thinner but precise muscled in all sorts of ways. They reflect an enormous and, strictly speaking, useless outlay of try. They personify work in excess of necessitate, signaling asset through wastefulness and apologizing ones control of it through the performance of personal virtue.

But you dont have to be a CEO or an affluent professional to partake in noticeable product. Technology has made it possible for everyone to see everything as a chance for productivity. You can measure your sleep, sex and paces with a Fitbit, your attractiveness with Tinder, your wittiness with Twitter, your notoriety with Facebook. You can alter your identity into a dashboard of data river that can be monitored, analyzed and optimized with the precision of an industrial process. You can alter your life into a factory and not only metaphorically. In creating yourself, you produce economic value for others. The hours you spend on these platforms may be unwaged, but they generate real income for the companies that own them.

This is the genius of noticeable production. It not only promotes a culture of overwork, it obliges our diminishing quantity of leisure time economically productive. There is no escape: either were working for the company or were working on ourselves, but were always cultivating. Eight hours for production, eight hours for remain, eight hours of what we will was the hymn of the employees who firstly demanded the eight-hour-day more than a century ago.Those marks dont make sense any more. Even our sleep is factored into our productivity score the entrepreneur of the self never gets to clock out.

Today, the old-fashioned slogan of the labor movement is just like utopian science fiction. Imagine a society that claimed so little of our strive. Reckon a macrocosm where the poorest of the poor didnt are now working so hard to exist, and the rich didnt have to work so hard to appear worthy of their capital, because rich and good didnt exist.

The post The brand-new status badge: it’s not what you waste – it’s how hard “youre working” appeared first on apsbicepstraining.com.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2uvllph via IFTTT