#periphery demographic

[hitchell-mope]

Phrases I think [tumblr] needs to learn.

They are. Temporal context. Periphery demographic. Queerbaiting. Collateral damage. Three of which a lot of people use incorrectly to their advantage. And another that I’m 90% sure they’re ignorant about the actual meaning of. So for the purposes of this post I’ll be listing them along with the meanings and some examples. Like so:

Temporal context. Understanding that when a show, film or book is made and/or set more often than not influences its contents. For example. Stranger things. Friends. Harry Potter. Original star trek. Classic doctor who. You cannot and should not approach these with a 2022 mindset because things made and set twenty or a hundred or hell even five years ago are never going to match the current morality system you’ve cultivated through social media. Either continue being mad that a show set in Reagan’s America hasn’t said the words gay or lesbian to describe its two lgbt characters yet or acknowledge they’re doing a helluva lot more than an actual show from the eighties would’ve done, move on and enjoy what they’ve done so far. Trust me. You’ll be so much better off if you do

Periphery demographic. Why we aren’t getting actual canonical lgbt characters in mainstream Disney movies while the current old guard are still around. It’s all very well and good to go on about how “don’t they know what I would’ve done for representation as a kid?” But they don’t. Because they don’t care about the Tumblr demographic. They care about entertaining the five year olds and the parents with the money to spend on the film who might not want to take the kids to see it if there’s anything they might find objectionable in it. And sadly. Quite a few believe that lgbt content kids films is poisonous to their precious offspring. It’s a truly, truly, horribly shitty belief system. But still. It’s the ugly truth.

Queerbaiting. I’ve heard of it. I’ve never seen it. And all the pairings I’ve seen labelled as it. Ain’t it. Destiel. Supercorp. Swan queen. Byler. Johnlock. That’s not queerbaiting. That’s fans latching on to something that isn’t there and going ballistic and quite frankly terrifyingly entitled when it doesn’t happen. Just because you think a character that’s only ever been interested in the opposite gender is secretly gay and in love with your obsession doesn’t make them gay or make you right. No matter how much meta, fanfic or gifsets you make and consume. Clothes, eating habits, hair and way of speaking doesn’t make someone gay. Do you know what does? Actually being homosexual. Which Dean, Kara, Emma, Mike and John are not. Headcanons are fine. But if you have to change every single little thing about a character to enjoy the show. Then you shouldn’t be watching said show.

Collateral damage. Audrey Rose in descendants. Lindsey Lister in Gilmore Girls. Side characters (Lindsey) or antagonists (Audrey) that exist to be a background character in the main characters story. Unfortunately. Many fans latch onto these characters are bleat about how they deserved better. When they didn’t. Especially in Audrey’s case. Lindsey existed purely to show that Dean Forester, that poor poor mistreated boy, wasn’t over Rory. Audrey existed as the stereotypical bitch that the boy leaves for the better option. And when they tried to give her depth. Her still didn’t get wet. I hate Audrey. Always have. Always will. And I don’t care about Lindsey. But they served their purpose. And fans should leave it at that.

So there you go. Four phrases that [tumblr] should learn. If you do. Then you might wind up being ever so slightly calmer than you were before.

[epicspheal]

Some people want adult protagonists for darker, edgier games I want adult protagonists because I think it's important (especially with the context of the COVID pandemic) to show kids your dreams don't have to die once you turn 18. Like having been an adult for almost 12 years now, adulting can suck. Paying taxes suck, needing a job sucks. But at the same time, I've been able to achieve childhood dreams as an adult, rediscover passions I felt I needed to give up because I was growing up or wasn't instantly good at. I've come into my own power And that's an important message for kids in generation, especially today with COVID changing a lot in regards to schooling and socialization, not to mention just in general the anxiety of growing up in today's world Like an adult protagonist who got a late start for their journey but still gets to do the typical story beats of having a rivalry, befriending the legendaries, becoming champion, saving the region would be a cool way to let kids know "hey it's okay if things don't work out as a kid, you can still keep your childhood dreams and childlike wonder alive". And an adult protagonist would also relate to the large periphery demographic of adults from 18-40 to remind them of that important fact as well.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The new globalism is global labor

For the rest of May, my bestselling solarpunk utopian novel THE LOST CAUSE (2023) is available as a $2.99, DRM-free ebook!

Depending on how you look at it, I either grew up in the periphery of the labor movement, or atop it, or surrounded by it. For a kid, labor issues don't really hold a lot of urgency – in places with mature labor movements, kids don't really have jobs, and the part-time jobs I had as a kid (paper route, cleaning a dance studio) were pretty benign.

Ironically, one of the reasons that labor issues barely registered for me as a kid was that my parents were in great, strong unions: Ontario teachers' unions, which protected teachers from exploitative working conditions and from retaliation when they advocated for their students, striking for better schools as well as better working conditions.

Ontario teachers' unions were strong enough that they could take the lead on workplace organization, to the benefit of teachers at every part of their careers, as well as students and the system as a whole. Back in the early 1980s, Ontario schools faced a demographic crisis. After years of declining enrollment, the number of students entering the system was rapidly increasing.

That meant that each level of the system – primary, junior, secondary – was about to go through a whipsaw, in which low numbers of students would be followed by large numbers. For a unionized education workforce, this presented a crisis: normally, a severe contraction in student numbers would trigger layoffs, on a last-in, first-out basis. That meant that layoffs loomed for junior teachers, who would almost certainly end up retraining for another career. When student numbers picked up again, those teachers wouldn't be in the workforce anymore, and worse, a lot of the senior teachers who got priority during layoffs would be retiring, magnifying the crisis.

The teachers' unions were strong, and they cared about students and teachers, both those at the start of their careers and those who'd given many years of service. They came up with an amazing solution: "self-funded sabbaticals." Teachers with a set number of years of seniority could choose to take four years at 80% salary, and get a fifth year off at 80% salary (actually, they could take their year off any time from the third year on).

This allowed Ontario to increase its workforce by about 20%, for free. Senior teachers got a year off to spend with their families, or on continuing education, or for travel. Junior teachers' jobs were protected. Students coming into the system had adequate classroom staff, in a mix of both senior and junior teachers.

This worked great for everyone, including my family. My parents both took their four-over-five year in 1983/84. They rented out our house for six months, charging enough to cover the mortgage. We flew to London, took a ferry to France, and leased a little sedan. For the next six months, we drove around Europe, visiting fourteen countries while my parents homeschooled us on the long highway stretches and in laundromats. We stayed in youth hostels and took a train to Leningrad to visit my family there. We saw Christmas Midnight Mass at the Vatican and walked around the Parthenon. We saw Guernica at the Prado. We visited a computer lab in Paris and I learned to program Logo in French. We hung out with my parents' teacher pals who were civilian educators at a Canadian Forces Base in Baden-Baden. I bought an amazing hand-carved chess set in Seville with medieval motifs that sung to my D&D playing heart. It was amazing.

No, really, it was amazing. Unions and the social contract they bargained for transformed my family's life chances. My dad came to Canada as a refugee, the son of a teen mother who'd been deeply traumatized by her civil defense service as a child during the Siege of Leningrad. My mother was the eldest child of a man who, at thirteen, had dropped out of school to support his nine brothers and sisters after the death of his father. My parents grew up to not only own a home, but to be able to take their sons on a latter-day version of the Grand Tour that was once the exclusive province of weak-chinned toffs from the uppermost of crusts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tour

My parents were active in labor causes and in their unions, of course, but that was just part of their activist lives. My mother was a leader in the fight for legal abortion rights in Canada:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/doctorow/8882641733

My dad was active in party politics with the New Democratic Party, and both he and my mother were deeply involved with the fight against nuclear arms proliferation, a major issue in Canada, given our role in supplying radioisotopes to the US, building key components for ICBMs, testing cruise missiles over Labrador, and our participation in NORAD.

Abortion rights and nuclear arms proliferation were my own entry into political activism. When I was 13, I organized a large contingent from my school to march on Queen's Park, the seat of the Provincial Parliament, to demand an end to Ontario's active and critical participation in the hastening of global nuclear conflagration:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/doctorow/53616011737/

When I got a little older, I started helping with clinic defense and counterprotests at the Morgentaler Clinic and other sites in Toronto that provided safe access to women's health, including abortions:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/morgentaler-honoured-by-order-of-canada-federal-government-not-involved-1.716775

My teens were a period of deepening involvement in politics. It was hard work, but rewarding and fundamentally hopeful. There, in the shadow of imminent nuclear armageddon, there was a role for me to play, a way to be more than a passive passenger on a runaway train, to participate in the effort to pull the brake lever before we ran over the cliff.

In hindsight, though, I can see that even as my activism intensified, it also got harder. We struggled more to find places to meet, to find phones and computers to use, to find people who could explain how to get a permit for a demonstration or to get legal assistance for comrades in jail after a civil disobedience action.

What I couldn't see at the time was that all of this was provided by organized labor. The labor movement had the halls, the photocopiers, the lawyers, the experience – the infrastructure. Even for campaigns that were directly about labor rights – campaigns for abortion rights, or against nuclear annihilation – the labor movement was the material, tangible base for our activities.

Look, riding a bicycle around all night wheatpasting posters to telephone poles to turn out people for an upcoming demonstration is hard work, but it's much harder if you have to pay for xeroxing at Kinko's rather than getting it for free at the union hall. Worse, the demonstration turnout suffers more because the union phone-trees and newsletters stop bringing out the numbers they once brought out.

This was why the neoliberal project took such savage aim at labor: they understood that a strong labor movement was foundation of antiimperialist, antiracist, antisexist struggles for justice. By dismantling labor, the ruling class kicked the legs out from under all the other fights that mattered.

Every year, it got harder to fight for any kind of better world. We activist kids grew to our twenties and foundered, spending precious hours searching for a room to hold a meeting, leaving us with fewer hours to spend organizing the thing we were meeting for. But gradually, we rebuilt. We started to stand up our own fragile, brittle, nascent structures that stood in for the mature and solid labor foundation that we'd grown up with.

The first time I got an inkling of what was going on came in 1999, with the Battle of Seattle: the mass protests over the WTO. Yes, labor turned out in force for those mass demonstrations, but they weren't its leaders. The militancy, the leadership, and the organization came out of groups that could loosely be called "post-labor" – not in the sense that they no longer believed in labor causes, but in the sense that they were being organized outside of traditional labor.

Labor was in retreat. Five years earlier, organized labor had responded to NAFTA by organizing against Mexican workers, rather than the bosses who wanted to ship jobs to Mexico. It wasn't unusual to see cars in Ontario with CAW bumper stickers alongside xenophobic stickers taking aim at Mexicans, not bosses. Those were the only workers that organized labor saw as competitors for labor rights: this was also the heyday of "two-tier" contracts, which protected benefits for senior workers while leaving their junior comrades exposed to bosses' most sadistic practices, while still expecting junior workers to pay dues to a union that wouldn't protect them:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/25/strikesgiving/#shed-a-tier

Two-tier contracts were the opposite of the solidarity that my parents' teachers' union exhibited in the early 1980s; blaming Mexican workers for automakers' offshoring was the opposite of the solidarity that built transracial and international labor power in the early days of the union movement:

https://unionhall.aflcio.org/bloomington-normal-trades-and-labor-assembly/labor-culture/edge-anarchy-first-class-pullman-strike

As labor withered under a sustained, multi-decades-long assault on workers' rights, other movements started to recapitulate the evolution of early labor, shoring up fragile movements that lacked legal protections, weathering setbacks, and building a "progressive" coalition that encompassed numerous issues. And then that movement started to support a new wave of labor organizing, situating labor issues on a continuum of justice questions, from race to gender to predatory college lending.

Young workers from every sector joined ossified unions with corrupt, sellout leaders and helped engineer their ouster, turning these dying old unions into engines of successful labor militancy:

https://theintercept.com/2023/04/07/deconstructed-union-dhl-teamsters-uaw/

In other words, we're in the midst of a reversal of the historic role of labor and other social justice movements. Whereas once labor anchored a large collection of smaller, less unified social movements; today those social movements are helping bring back a weakened and fragmented labor movement.

One of the key organizing questions for today is whether these two movements can continue to co-evolve and, eventually, merge. For example: there can be no successful climate action without climate justice. The least paid workers in America are also the most racially disfavored. The gender pay-gap exists in all labor markets. For labor, integrating social justice questions isn't just morally sound, it's also tactically necessary.

One thing such a fusion can produce is a truly international labor movement. Today, social justice movements are transnational: the successful Irish campaign for abortion rights was closely linked to key abortion rights struggles in Argentina and Poland, and today, abortion rights organizers from all over the world are involved in mailing medication abortion pills to America.

A global labor movement is necessary, and not just to defeat the divide-and-rule tactics of the NAFTA fight. The WTO's legacy is a firmly global capitalism: workers all over the world are fighting the same corporations. The strong unions of one country are threatened by weak labor in other countries where their key corporations seek to shift manufacturing or service delivery. But those same strong unions are able to use their power to help their comrades abroad protect their labor rights, depriving their common adversary of an easily exploited workforce.

A key recent example is Mercedes, part of the Daimler global octopus. Mercedes' home turf is Germany, which boasts some of the strongest autoworker unions in the world. In the USA, Mercedes – like other German auto giants – preferentially manufactures its cars in the South, America's "onshore-offshore" crime havens, where labor laws are both virtually nonexistent and largely unenforced. This allows Mercedes to exploit and endanger a largely Black workforce in a "right to work" territory where unions are nearly impossible to form and sustain.

Mercedes just defeated a hard-fought union drive in Vance, Alabama. In part, this was due to admitted tactical blunders from the UAW, who have recently racked up unprecedented victories in Tennessee and North Carolina:

https://paydayreport.com/uaw-admits-digital-heavy-organizing-committee-light-approach-failed-them-in-alabama-at-mercedes/

But mostly, this was because Mercedes cheated. They flagrantly violated labor law to sabotage the union vote. That's where it gets interesting. German workers have successfully lobbied the German parliament for the Supply Chain Act, an anticorruption law that punishes German companies that violate labor law abroad. That means that even though the UAW just lost their election, they might inflict some serious pain on Mercedes, who face a fine of 2% of their global annual revenue, and a ban on selling cars to the German government:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/10/an-injury-to-one/#is-an-injury-to-all

This is another way reversal of the post-neoliberal era. Whereas once the US exported its most rapacious corporate practices all over the world, today, global labor stands a chance of exporting workers' rights from weak territories to strong ones.

Here's an American analogy: the US's two most populous states are California and Texas. The policies of these states ripple out over the whole country, and even beyond. When Texas requires textbooks that ban evolution, every pupil in the country is at risk of getting a textbook that embraces Young Earth Creationism. When California enacts strict emission standards, every car in the country gets cleaner tailpipes. The WTO was a Texas-style export: a race to the bottom, all around the world. The moment we're living through now, as global social movements fuse with global labor, are a California-style export, a race to the top.

This is a weird upside to global monopoly capitalism. It's how antitrust regulators all over the world are taking on corporations whose power rivals global superpowers like the USA and China: because they're all fighting the same corporations, they can share tactics and even recycle evidence from one-another's antitrust cases:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/big-tech-eu-drop-dead

Look, the UAW messed up in Alabama. A successful union vote is won before the first ballot is cast. If your ground game isn't strong enough to know the outcome of the vote before the ballot box opens, you need more organizing, not a vote:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/23/a-collective-bargain/

But thanks to global labor – and its enemy, global capitalism – the UAW gets another chance. Global capitalism is rich and powerful, but it has key weaknesses. Its drive to "efficiency" makes it terribly vulnerable, and a disruption anywhere in its supply chain can bring the whole global empire to its knees:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/21/eight-and-skate/#strike-to-rule

American workers – especially swing-state workers who swung for Trump and are leaning his way again – overwhelmingly support a pro-labor agenda. They are furious over "price gouging and outrageous corporate profits…wealthy corporate CEOs and billionaires [not] paying what they should in taxes and the top 1% gaming the system":

https://www.americanfamilyvoices.org/_files/ugd/d4d64f_6c3dff0c3da74098b07ed3f086705af2.pdf

They support universal healthcare, and value Medicare and Social Security, and trust the Democrats to manage both better than Republicans will. They support "abortion rights, affordable child care, and even forgiving student loans":

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-05-20-bidens-working-class-slump/

The problem is that these blue-collar voters are atomized. They no longer meet in union halls – they belong to gun clubs affiliated with the NRA. There are enough people who are a) undecided and b) union members in these swing states to defeat Trump. This is why labor power matters, and why a fusion of American labor and social justice movements matters – and why an international fusion of a labor-social justice coalition is our best hope for a habitable planet and a decent lives for our families.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/20/a-common-foe/#the-multinational-playbook

[pepsi-al]

And now, for another piece of Serena glazing brought to you by an entitled fan from the vocal minority.

Going over this so you don't have to.

The first point he tries to make is that the XY anime in an attempt to prove that the XY anime is "the most popular Pokémon Anime series", using an IMDB rating of it to back it up with, even though the rating in question is, like, taken from about 617 people. Not even a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of viewers the XY anime ended with, let alone started out with. Which should pretty much tell anyone that the people who are giving such praise to the XY anime are not even part of the target audience. Especially since Yo-Kai Watch has been outright beating the XY anime in the ratings throughout the latter's run.

He credits Serena to being part of the success that the XY anime had. Even though the only place where it found "success" was among the periphery online fandom. Meanwhile what her portrayal and "AmourShipping" actually did contribute to in regards to the XY anime is the alienation of the target audience. With the target audience themselves going on record to say that they weren't vibing with what "AmourShipping" was giving them. And in regards to those not among the target audience but didn't vibe with "AmourShipping" nonetheless, they knew that "AmourShipping" wasn't going to go anywhere.

He thinks that Serena "brought new things to the table", all the while already singing Serena's praises, calling her "the best PokéGirl of all time", as well as one of the best characters in the entire franchise. Pretty much blatantly ignoring what was already on the table before Serena even arrived.

He outright thinks that every female companion of Ash's after Misty but prior to Serena is somehow "a copy of Misty". Yeah, sure. Let's just ignore everything else that sets Ash's female companions besides Serena apart from each other, and just boil down their behavior to "Misty-esque". Granted, he does state that they have defining characteristics, such as May becoming a "Performer". (Uhh, dude? Coordinator, while similar, doesn't equal Performer.) But he seems to think they all have the same kind of personality Misty has, which couldn't be any further from the truth.

The attention he calls to in regards to Ash's female companions before Serena being "sassy" and "a jerk to Ash" pretty much shows his entire thought process into making this video. And why he was so reductive towards May, Dawn, and Iris. He's basically telling people here that he projects himself onto Ash, and that he doesn't think that Ash should have to put up with someone who, understandably, calls Ash out on his stupidity on a regular basis. (And in doing so, pretty much missing the point of Ash's character.) Also, was anyone that wasn't a part of the hardcore AniPoké fandom seriously getting tired of a girl being around to call Ash out on his faults? Does this guy genuinely believe that? Last I checked, before the time of the XY anime, they were getting tired of Ash, not his female companions in anything apart from getting sidelined in favor of Ash.

Actually, nobody apart from the periphery demographic actually "fell immediately in love with Serena". And those who did immediately fall in love with her didn't do so because of her personality. It was because of her crush on Ash, and because of marketing. Her actual personality is nothing to sneeze at, and is pretty much not only nothing like her source material counterpart, but also pretty much what you would expect from a character with no depth to her personality beyond "I'm girly because I'm a girl". Also, "kind" and "caring" literally describe ALL of Ash's female companions. Whereas "independent" describes ALL of Ash's female companions EXCEPT Serena. "Kind to everyone" and "not afraid to express how she was feeling" isn't unique to her. (The latter is definitely one of the reasons why Misty is popular. And Serena definitely seemed afraid to express how she's feeling around Ash.) And she's definitely nowhere near the first to be friendly towards everyone and ready to extend a helping hand whenever anyone is in trouble. (Again. That's literally a reason why Misty is popular to begin with.) Not to mention, Serena wasn't bratty? This dude never saw how Serena feels about her mother. And again with the "not a jerk to Ash" bit. Heck, he even brings up when she cares for Ash when he's sick as though it hadn't been done before, when it has by Misty. It's like he doesn't actually give a crap about Serena's actual character, is more interested in the fact that the showrunners made her only purpose on the show to be to make Ash look good, and is only gassing her up both to make her look better than she is, and because he feels like she's the perfect character to make Ash look good; pretty much a regular pastime for guys like him at this point. It also shows a double standard in regards to his thought process. If the female traveling companion of Ash is her own character and made out to be his equal, then anything she does, even if beneficial for Ash, is automatically bad. But if that female traveling companion is instead made specifically to make Ash look good, as though as she were a typical female character in a Shounen anime, then anything that she does, even if it harms Ash in any way, is automatically good.

Also, if things did end up changing for the better in regards to Ash's female companions, they did so in spite of Serena, not because of her. Mallow, Lana, and Lillie, were all pretty much close representations of if not direct translations of their source material counterparts. Chloe, an AniPoké OC, is pretty much the only one that comes after AniPoké Serena who is the most similar to her in terms of characterization. But, despite her doing the similarities she has with Serena better than Serena did, the reaction the periphery demographic actually has towards her (read: Chloe is disliked by the periphery audience for being "too boring", "aimless", "decided upon a goal that defeated the purpose of her character", etc.) only succeeds in showcasing said demographic's hypocrisy towards her.

WRT the unnecessary shade towards Misty's direction, saying that she would not have cared, and that she would have thrown Ash "in the deep end", this literally reinforces what I'm saying about Serena fans thinking that whatever a female traveling companion of Ash's does to Ash in their eyes is automatically bad if she's made out to be his equal and dares to be her own character. Because that's not what Misty would do at all. He completely doesn't understand her character. She would have and has helped Ash whenever he's sick. On that note, what is it with Serena fans and slinging mud at Misty? I swear. They feel threatened by her.

He's right about Serena's "relationship" with Ash being a reason why she's "popular" among the periphery audience. But what he doesn't realize is that the same reason why she's "popular" is also her biggest flaw as a character. Like, he doesn't even question how Serena is able to remember Ash despite it being so long since she supposedly last saw him. (2-5 years before the XY anime, and for a very brief moment at that.) He also ignores that all of the flashbacks to Serena meeting Ash at Oak's Summer Camp are exclusively from Serena's PoV, as well as not questioning how Ash and Serena didn't stay in touch if they supposedly knew each other. And how does he figure that the writers loved Serena when, if they had their way, Serena wouldn't have been given the characterization that she was given? Calling it "wholesome" and "what gave fans diabetes" is just basically talking about the frosting covering the the cake that tastes like stale air. He then rambles on about how Serena sees Ash as a "selfless hero", pretty much talking about Serena's blind worship of him, and downplaying how over-the-top it is compared to the complements Ash got from other girls. Even calling Serena constantly blushing around Ash, and Ash giving her the kind of compliment that he'll give May and Dawn "wholesome" rather than seeing it as the hard-to-watch mess that it is. And again, putting the emphasis on Serena seeing Ash as both "someone who's good at battling", and "someone with a good soul", shows that he doesn't really care about Serena's character, and that he's ignored that other girls have seen Ash as someone with a good soul before without blindly worshipping him. And I struggle to see how anyone can call something so blatantly shipfic-y in an official work "special". He is right about how we're not going to to see something like Ash and Serena again. To which I say: GREAT! "AmourShipping" was a bad idea from the get-go, and should serve as a cautionary tale.

And the last point he tries to make is how the female traveling companions of Ash prior to Serena "didn't really have any much if any impact". Like, what does he mean by this? Story? On Ash? Misty pretty much played a big part in why Ash is as great of a trainer as he is now, and is why he's alive. She was responsible helping Ash discover the entrance to Cinnabar Gym. May was pretty much responsible for picking up the slack whenever Ash wasn't around, and had her own arc. Dawn was chosen by Mesprit to defend Sinnoh. And "mainly used as comedic relief or to fill in that 'girl' spot for the rest of the series"? How does he think that this somehow doesn't apply to Serena? And I don't know how he thinks that Iris is a step in the right direction when, while a breath of fresh air compared to Dawn and May, when she isn't exactly treading new ground. And he's just glazing Serena by saying that she's had a bigger purpose in the story as it progressed when it really wouldn't be different without her as it is with her. And as far as "providing a completely different contrast compared to a Pokémon Trainer" is concerned, Lillie does that job far better due to being her own character and coming across as human as Misty while having her own arc herself, whereas Serena just comes across as no different from a Bond Girl or a one-off "love-interest" for Jim Kirk that isn't named Carol Marcus. He then goes on to praise Showcases, even though they're pretty much a dumbed down Pokémon Contest rip-off. And how does she lose time and time again when her only notable loss is her first ever Showcase, which she didn't really learn anything from? And her impact on Ash's character as a whole is basically non-existent, given that she doesn't even cross Ash's mind in Journeys when he thought about his travels in Kalos, and even almost ran past her like how Shulk ran past Melia. And he fails to realize that Serena actually did to Ash something that would help someone speedrun the ending of a friendship with a depressed person in real life, making his situation about her than about him. Plus, Ash would have gotten out of his funk without her "help". And the entire scene got retconned in Journeys, anyways. And honestly. What "lessons" did she give him that he didn't or shouldn't already know before the XY anime? Her role in helping shape Ash into the trainer who would go on to win the world championship is negligible. And in case he didn't notice, the Ash following the XY anime IS the same Ash from all the way back in Indigo League but grown up mentally, and definitely not due to anything that Serena actually did. Also, Ash learned the lesson that "it's okay to lose" all the way back in Orange Islands, where Serena doesn't even make an appearance. Instead, Ash learned that lesson from LORELEI, and in a later episode, Misty reiterated the lesson that Lorelei taught him. And once again, saying that Serena "beat the jerk and sassy trope" shows his lack of care towards Serena. The fact that he even brings up the "kiss", which even Yajima himself said could have been a whisper in Ash's ear for all he knew, is emblematic of how he really sees Serena.

And really? Does he really have the audacity to ask "how could you not love her"? He's clearly spent no time outside of the echo chamber, and no time in circles where Serena is criticized because of how her character was mishandled. And he definitely spoke to nobody who actually likes Serena as a character that feels like her potential as a character was outright wasted by the direction the showrunners took with her.

As for what I think about Serena's character? I think that she sucks. Period.

[northgazaupdates]

25 February 2024

Multiple sources report the bombing of a group of civilians waiting for food aid at Nabulsi Roundabout in northern Gaza. Resistance News Network reports at least 10 martyrs and dozens of injuries. The notice reads,

🚨 Over 10 martyrs ascended, and dozens more are wounded, after US-funded IOF warplanes bombed a group of Palestinians while waiting for aid at the Al-Nabulsi roundabout in Gaza City in the northern #Gaza Strip.

The rare entrance of food aid into north Gaza has become synonymous with IOF sniper and bomb attacks. Every time people gather, waiting hours upon hours based only on the faint hope of aid arriving, the IOF fires directly into the crowd, killing several and wounding dozens. Today’s attack is part of this organized pattern of starvation and slaughter. Yet, even knowing IOF attacks are imminent, thousands of Gazans still risk their lives to get a bag of flour for their families.

This has become so common place in northern Gaza that it scarcely gets reported on outside of the Strip. It cannot be overstated what a dire indictment this is of the global north and the international community. The fact that this happened even once is an atrocity which, if it occurred somewhere geographically and demographically closer to the imperial core countries, would draw global outrage and condemnation. But Gaza (like many other places in crisis) is in the imperial periphery. As such, the attacks have become common, and draw practically no outcry or intervention from the wider international community.

Source: Resistance News Network on Telegram (WARNING: videos linked in RNN’s post are VERY GRAPHIC), Mohammed Al-Hendi via Stories on Instagram

[lolotheparagon]

I love how we live in a timeline where a preschool cartoon about dogs is more emotionally resonant and tackles mature topics better than an adult cartoon about horny demons.

And what’s funnier is that both shows attract the completely opposite periphery demographics because of their respective content.

Helluva Boss, despite being an adult show, attracts teenagers cos the show’s childish humour and angsty romance is what teenagers love.

And Bluey, despite being a preschool show, made 30 year old adults cry.

And yknow why? COS SIMPLE, FUNNY AND HEARTWARMING STORIES IS UNIVERSAL, BABY!!

[rlyehtaxidermist]

i think a whole Thing in the "but adults can watch children's media too" thing is like. yeah, you can. but it's not for you.

"but art is for everyone" art is, yes. everyone can take whatever they want out of any art. but art is not created for everyone. not even focus grouped, sanitised corporate art. not even public art, like parks or architecture. everyone making anything has an audience in mind, and will make different decisions based on what that audience is and how it relates to everything else.

the people making those decisions at the walt disney company or nickelodeon or whatever else are not seriously considering a thirty-something's reaction, except maybe as a periphery demographic for merchandising. the most they are thinking about you for in the actual writing of the actual media is to make sure the parents have a good enough time to bring their kids back for the sequel in a couple years.

something made for children doesn't have to be shallow or facile or whatever else. but it very much is made for children.

[random-thought-depository]

"The imperative of protecting the vulnerable young in a predator-rich environment no doubt played a major role in shaping human sex differences and sexuality. La difference - the sexual dimorphism characteristic of humans and many other animals - is now believed to reflect, in large part, the greater role of males in actual combat with predators. Hunting, too, if it were a male-only activity, would have favored bigger, stronger males. But long before the male hunting band, males were probably deployed as baboon males are: to guard the periphery of the group." - Barbara Ehrenreich, Blood Rites.

Some years back I read a post about how war is basically an exercise in sending barely adult young men to kill each other, but this is made more palatable by honoring the young men used so. Blood Rites seems like basically an attempt to offer a theoretical model of the origins of that behavior; not so much the origins of the war part as the origins of the honoring part.

I've only read the parts I could find for free on the internet cause my local library doesn't seem to have the book and my financial situation is not great so I'm reluctant to buy it, I'm wondering if she talks more about how her theory relates to gender, especially masculinity, cause, like...

... Yeah, let's talk about those hypothetical proto-humans making their camp in the Pleistocene savanna, deploying in that gendered defensive formation, the fighting age adult males deployed in a ring at the periphery of the camp, clutching their sharpened sticks and stone hand axes (the mightiest human weapons of this era), deployed out there to watch for and defend against and absorb the violence of the savanna's predators, while the more vulnerable immature young and more demographically valuable females and the few elders who've managed to live long enough to become enfeebled get the relative safety of the camp's center.

If the masculine gender role originally emerged from that situation, I think that would explain a lot about what it looks like! In the context of that defensive formation might emerge association of maleness with combat and an idea that able-bodied adult males should participate in group violence, masculine protectiveness toward women and children and division of humanity into fighting men and protected ones (women, children, the old and disabled), valuing and honoring of courage in combat especially in males, shaming and ostracism and punishment of young males who very understandably show noticeable reluctance to leave the relative safety of the group's core and take a place in the peripheral defensive ring when they reach maturity, females using gifts, affection, and sex as ways to reward males who show willingness to put themselves at risk for the sake of the group, honoring of heroes (the male who drove a sharpened stick into the lioness's side), honoring of the memory of martyrs (the male who threw little stones at the dinofelis and drew its hunger and rage down upon him so it would kill him instead of a woman or a child).

There's a paragraph, like, right after that quote that speculates that human playful/social non-reproductive sexuality may have evolved in that context, which, yeah, if we're going to talk about the gendered aspect of this we should talk about some of the stuff I talked about here. When I first conceptualized the first sentence of my response to that quote the phrasing that bubbled into my mind was "barely legal adult," which, lol, "barely legal" is a porn category, usually meaning an 18 year old young actress IIRC, but actually I think there might be something in noticing that parallel, pulling on that thread! Also, I see a possible intersection with the Sex At Dawn kind of monogamy as a relatively recent innovation hypothesis in this. In this gendered anti-predator defense formation males would work together to defend the females and immature young of the group as a collectivity. If you're going to use male-female sexual bonding to strengthen that relationship, it would probably work better if it was polyamorous so most or all of the group's fighting males would feel that attraction-affection-gratitude-protectiveness tangle of emotions toward many of the group's females.

Re: hunting hypothesis vs. defense hypothesis for the origins of human organized violence, which is something Ms. Ehrenreich talks about (she's strongly on the side of the defense hypothesis) - as I pointed out here, I think the human tendency to honor courage is suggestive; courage is the virtue of a prey species that engages in collective defense; a smart predator attacks the weak, avoids fights with the strong, and quickly retreats if it loses the advantage. Then again, bravery is also useful in intra-species competition, so that's not conclusive (notably, I think the "a smart predator isn't brave" thing isn't so obvious to a lot of humans because present and recent historical human hunting is often partly an intra-species social activity oriented toward gaining prestige by killing big, strong, dangerous animals and taking impressive trophies). I also think that stuff like that visceral dislike of deserters David Graeber talked about fits better with this model. Like, yeah, I guess big game hunting might have been vital to survival sometimes, but it's hard to see "all men must be hunters!" as a strong imperative unless it's really about something else (like enforcing gender conformity). But an able-bodied adult male who runs away instead of defending the women and children when the hungry lions come? Yeah, I could see emotions that incline toward very strongly disincentivizing that behavior getting strongly selected for. Then again, the threat that encouraged strong negative attitudes toward deserters might have been organized violence by other human groups, we've had at least multiple millennia when the animal most likely to kill a human was another human, so again, not conclusive.

IDK though I'm probably biased toward this model cause it's extremely congruent with my kinks and damage lol. Like, one of my "maybe I'm an outlier and shouldn't be counted, but..." issues with 2010s flavor feminism was "if you're going to talk about masculinity, I'm a cis-in-the-expansive-sense male and I don't really see myself at all in this figure of the entitled misogynistic 'bro' you seem to think is the default state of men in our society, but I once ignored a severe and painful toe infection cause I just kind of didn't want to be a bother about it and didn't want to inflict a doctor's bill on my family, and something in my brain shivers in dark rapture at the 'I will stay and be thy husband / though it be the death of me' line in The Maiden and the Selkie."

Another thing I'm wondering about is if the book touches on the situation I talked about here and here, where early humans got smart enough to imagine pre-emptive self-defense with a long planning horizon and revenge and started to turn the tables and actively hunt human-eaters. Because if we're suggesting that the "put them in white robes and give them gold bands" aspect of war is originally derived from our responses to predation, that seems like it might have been a very important stage in the emergence of that!

There's a bit in the book speculating that the primordial situation religious sacrifice reconstructs is a group of proto-humans being attacked by a predator and one of them being killed and carried away, possibly with one of the proto-humans either voluntarily offering themselves to the predator so it doesn't hurt the others or being chosen as a designated victim (note: this was Barbara Ehrenreich relating somebody else's idea). And, yeah, I guess that might be a harrowing formative collective trauma of our species, but it doesn't leave much time for ceremony and it's an inherently unpredictable fast messy process. It really wouldn't be a promising nucleus for rituals to grow around. It might get associated grief rituals that happen afterward, but the kind of ceremonialization of war Barbara Ehrenreich is talking about is more about the preparation for organized violence, the build-up. Also, I think a big part of the emotional appeal of that ceremonialization of war is that it generates a feeling of power, whereas watching one of your friends get dragged away by a lion would have exactly the opposite effect, it would make you feel weak and afraid.

You know what would offer time for ceremony and a prolonged period of fearful-angry-mournful-but-also-hopeful emotional build-up? When some clever proto-humans get a bright idea. They already hunt small weak animals like monkeys (chimps do), they are already used to fighting their predators with simple weapons, they have already learned to track predators to some extent to better avoid them, now combine these skill sets! Instead of waiting for the predator to come to them again and have the fight on its terms and hope to just drive it off so everyone gets to live one more day, they can seek its trail, find its lair, fight it in circumstances of their choosing, kill it and the end the threat of it forever, invert the ancient relationship between its species and theirs, hunt the dinofelis or megantereon or whatever that predator is! Now give it maybe a few generations or centuries or millennia for that practice to become an institution...

Here is the opportunity for vows of revenge choked out through tears as what's left of the predator's latest victim is buried in honor. Here is the opportunity for the selection of champions. Here is the opportunity for rituals to prepare the chosen for their terrible and glorious task (dream image: an old woman opening a shallow cut on her left arm with an obsidian butchery flake and using a thumb to smear a little of her blood on the foreheads of five 16-26 year old boys). Here is the opportunity for the chosen to dance around the fire and sing confident war songs ("you big dumb cat, you don't know what's coming! You think we'll wait for you to come again and eat another of us like the dumb antelope! You'll be so surprised when we hunt you instead, when we trap you in your hole and kill you! I'll cut your stomach open to get my niece's bones back! I'll cut off your head and cut out the teeth you tore up my niece with and give them to my mother and my aunt to wear in their hair!"). Here is the opportunity for the community to luxuriate in the promise of power and deliverance their cleverness offers them (the big dumb cat indeed is oblivious to the danger it's in, no other prey species has the cognitive capacity for the kind of strategic thought these early humans are doing, this kind of prey behavior is an outside context problem its instincts do not prepare it for) and dream of a better future when the enemy is defeated. Here is the opportunity for the chosen to be indulgently pampered with food, affection, and sex as a reward for their selflessness, with the promise that they will be given more of the same treatment if they come back from their great task victorious and their memory will be honored if they die during their mission.

Imagine the high that might be for a prey species, especially if they still remember the long age of fear and grief and impotent anger before they realized they could turn the tables, hunt the hunter. Something something that Frantz Fanon-ish therapeutic value of inflicting violence on your tormentor idea.

“One of the most dangerous things in the universe is an ignorant people with real grievances. That is nowhere near as dangerous, however, as an informed and intelligent society with grievances. The damage that vengeful intelligence can wreak, you cannot even imagine.” - Frank Herbert, Heretics of Dune.

Aside: I know some nonhuman animals do sometimes attack their predators pro-actively, e.g. I've heard about cape buffalo doing that, but I don't think they do anything like try to systematically exterminate every individual predator that attacks a member of their group including tracking them and hunting them down with days-to-weeks planning horizons; you'd need some pretty serious cognitive capacity for that kind of strategic thought which I don't think cape buffalo and the like have.

In a different corner of Tumblr somebody made a post arguing that it's absurd to think that men experience gender oppression qua being men because there's no uniquely male experience of oppression. It's not an argument I particularly want to get into, but I think what I've just written is kind of a counter-argument against that idea, though admittedly a very weak one; highly speculative, and Anglophone internet feminists are usually talking centrally about relatively peaceful societies where being a man isn't particularly dangerous, and societies where being a man is dangerous are often really dangerous for women too.

[thegeneralreturns]

Thoughts on THE CROW (2024)

You know that TikTok of that emo kid, sitting in the front seat of his car, screaming "MY HEARRRRRRRT! IIIIII LOOOOOOVED HERRRRRR!"? Well, this new version of The Crow is that for two hours.

This is not a criticism. In fact, shock of shocks, I found myself kinda... sorta... loving this movie.

The path that the 1994 version of The Crow found toward its cult reverence is one steeped in tragedy. The untimely passing of its lead Brandon Lee during filming gave a tinge of romance and lost potential to what was, in essence, a big, dumb action movie. A big, dumb action movie that boasted a solid lead performance and the pinnacle of nineties set design and cinematography, but a big, dumb action movie nonetheless. No matter how good he was when the cameras were on him, Lee wasn't cast because he was a master thespian. He was cast because he was Bruce Lee's kid, and that might move a few tickets. The Crow was Bob and Harvey Weinstein's play to get Miramax in a position to compete with Warner Bros. and Batman, and one of the most infamous on-set accidents in film history led to a periphery demographic of Goth kids that are still cosplaying, buying the soundtrack, and lighting candles thirty years later.

The 2024 version of The Crow appears to be an effort to legitimately make the film that that periphery demographic seems to have been seeing in a mirage for the past thirty years, and on that score, I think it succeeds. It's open-wound sincere love story between two druggie kids, the tragedy that separates them, and the passion that brings one of them back in a rain of bullets and blood. I saw someone on Twitter call it "Twilight for scumbags," and that person deserves a Pulitzer Prize. It's pitched at that level, only instead of long, interminable stretches of the two leads staring at one another, it's broken up by bad guys getting shot in the face. There is a place for this.

FKA Twigs plays Shelly, and it's as though she sprang fully-formed out of Tim Burton's head with her compact, twee, English-accented Gothness. But I find Bill Skarsgard's Eric to be genuinely endearing. Whereas Brandon Lee's rendition of the character was an Alpha Chad who came out of the grave knowing combat tactics, the Skarsgard take is troubled, though well-meaning, and seemingly doesn't have a plan in his quest for revenge beyond "They can die and I can't." And the sight of this gaunt tree-branch taking shotgun blasts at point blank range sells the enormity of the odds against him.

The love story and character aspects of this movie are so persuasive that when the action does eventually get here, it can't help but suffer in comparison. Rupert Sanders is no Alex Proyas, and while he nails the impact of violence, the actual geography seems to give him trouble. Is it just me, or does the opera house in the climax appear to have too few floors than the sequence requires?

So which one is better? I don't know, and frankly I don't care. In a rational world, we could show appreciation that James O'Barr's source material was strong enough to facilitate two wildly different cinematic approaches. But we don't live in a rational world, and remaking a mid-nineties comic book movie is tantamount to blasphemy.

But what I do know is that we're gonna get older. New folks are gonna move in. And when you ask them which version is better, the answer won't be as one-sided as you think. Because if there's one thing that literally every version of The Crow has thought me, it is this:

Nothing this earnest stays dead for long.

[kaiwewi]

Guilty Conscience #11

[Masterlist: Renegade Rescue Squad] [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6] [Part 7] [Part 8] [Part 9] [Part 10]

Synopsis: Henchman and Harper take care of Villain and the little hero. The group finally leaves Other Villain's lair.

tw: blood

“Hey there, kiddo,” Henchman cooed, deep voice as soft as he could make it, and crouched down to inspect the hero’s injured leg. “Aw, you poor baby, that must be painful. Mind if I take a closer look? I promise I’ll be extra careful.”

The little hero shot Henchman their darkest scowl yet – how dare anyone have the audacity to call them a ‘baby’? – and straightened their back.

“Don’t patronise me.” Despite their endearing stubbornness, the expression on their face strongly suggested they’d rather curl up in a corner and have a good cry than pick this fight. “I’m fine. Other Villain hardly did anything. I’ve had worse.”

What a gruesome thought. Even among Supers – a demographic notorious for getting involved with violent crime – no one this young (or anyone really) should ever see the inside of Other Villain’s torture dungeon, receive a beating, then witness a murder, and still be able to confidently declare they’d been through worse.

And yet, that gritty tenacity the hero had shown…

Harper tsked. “Kid’s got a point. They aren’t bleeding too bad” – her sharp gaze fixed on him, on the stain on his shirt – “and neither are you. So? That Other Villain’s blood? Where is that maladjusted waste of organic matter and breathable air?”

The little hero huffed a surprised laugh.

He merely cringed.

Other Villain’s absence had to come up sooner or later. Harper noticed such things. Whether it was an addition or omission of subtle details in a report, something small and half-hidden in the periphery of her vision, or a tactical bypassing of conversation topics – somehow, she knew. It was uncanny.

That intuition was part of what made her an asset. His entire operation wouldn’t have made it far without her. For what was a villainous ambulance service without its unrivalled getaway driver, and Harper was the best. (He was convinced she’d still be the best if her intuition were the only ace up her sleeve.)

He adored her.

He’d still rather not address the issue that was Other Villain… but he pointed at the door to the stairwell anyway; and of course, when Harper went looking, Henchman followed suit.

Half of him wanted to accompany them. The other half would have loved to make a run for it.

His trembling legs refused to budge either way, so he sat down. He couldn’t stand any longer, his head was swimming and his throat was locked so tight he couldn’t get a proper breath down his airways and Henchman would never look at him the same again because he was a fucking murderer now and he was so cold without his jacket and why was he spiralling now when he should be over this already and tears were pooling in his eyes again and—

The hero gave him a gentle nudge. “Hey, your friend’s coming back.”

He looked up, dazed, to find Henchman walking over, casually unzipping and shrugging off his fleece-lined, between-seasons hoodie jacket. Without a word about murders or death or Other Villain, Henchman kneeled down in front of him, helped him out of his blood-soaked shirt, and smiled.

“Hey love, it’s all right. We can talk about this whenever you’re ready. Just breath, slow and steady. You’re okay. I’ve got you.”

The thick, plushy fabric of Henchman’s jacket (about three sizes too big for him) settled warm and heavy around his bare shoulders, wrapping him up in a comforting bubble of residual body heat and the smells of home: Bax’s beloved incense sticks, the eco-friendly laundry detergent Thief insisted they should all use, the smoke of Doc’s favourite brand of cigarettes, Henchman’s perfume with its smoky vanilla note, and the faintest whiff of sweat.

He fiddled his arms through the sleeves and allowed Henchman to zip up the jacket for him. Then he buried his face in the collar and inhaled deeply. The scent washed over him like the promise of forgiveness. For the first time in hours, he didn’t smell blood.

Henchman shrugged apologetically. “Been wearing that for a few days. Hope it’s not too smelly...”

“No,” he mumbled, “I like it. Thanks.”

The last remnants of his composure slipped from his grasp then, and once the tears had started falling, they kept coming.

Henchman scooted closer and put an arm around him. His head came to rest against Henchman’s shoulder and Henchman’s free hand ruffled his hair, affectionate and protective. The two of them remained in that position until he managed to calm down and was no longer sobbing and babbling half-coherent explanations and apologies.

He didn’t give a damn what Harper would think. And he almost didn’t care that the hero had witnessed half of his meltdown, until Harper had returned and had had the good sense to fetch the wheelchair from the van and cart the kid away, all the while muttering something about this not being what she’d signed up for when she’d joined the crew.

But when he and Henchman finally caught up with Harper and the hero, she was in the middle of entertaining the kid, flaunting her abilities for them by giving the van an illusionary makeover.

The plain white of the van’s exterior morphed into a complex design: navy blue swirling like smoke against a background of anthracite, adorned with ivy tendrils the colour of rose gold, softly bobbing as if stirred by a breeze. As he opened the sliding door, the ivy twined and curled to adjust its pattern around the empty space.

The hero watched the show, mesmerized. After receiving a large glass of juice and a few painkillers, their initial reluctance had begun to fade and was gradually replaced by a livelier attitude. They then spent the better half of the drive back to base asking questions: What was that button for? Why where there so many valves? Where were the cables coming from? Did the self-built ambulance have all the equipment a normal ambulance had? How many people had the team treated? Did they have doctors and a clinic for their patients?

Under the guise of showing the hero the equipment, he and Henchman even got to check the hero’s pulse, blood pressure, blood oxygen and blood sugar levels, and breathing. Afterwards, he allowed the kid to perform the same examinations on him.

“Your car is so cool,” the hero said. They’d taken off his mask.

With their face finally freed from blood and their scratches and abrasions sanitised and bandaged, that small smile tugging on the hero’s lips looked less like a nervous coping mechanism and more like the tentative beginnings of genuine optimism.

———

taglist: @d-cs @whumpycries

[mapsontheweb]

The Shibanid (Shaybanid) Conquests, 1500-1510.

by u/Swordrist

This is my attempt at covering an underapreciated area of history which gets next-to no coverage on the internet. Here's some historical context for those uneducated about the region's history:

Grandson of the former Uzbek Khan, Abulkhayr, Muhammad Shibani (or Shaybani) was a member of the clan labeled in modern historiography as the Abulkhayrids, who were one of the numerous tribes which were descended from Chingis Khan through Jochi's son, Shiban, hence the label 'Shibanid' which is used not only in relation to the Abulkhayrids who ruled over Bukhara but also for the Arabshahids, bitter rivals of the Abulkhayrids who would rule Khwaresm after Muhammad Shibani's death and for the ruling Shibanid dynasty of the Sibir Khanate.

After his grandfather's death in 1468, Shibani's father, Shah Budaq failed to maintain Abulkhayr's vast polity in the Dasht i-Qipchak, as the tribes elected instead the Arabshahid Yadigar Khan. Shah Budaq was killed by the Khan of Sibir and Shibani was forced to flee south to the Syr Darya region when the Kazakhs returned and proclaimed their leader, Janibek, Khan. Shibani became a mercenary, serving both the Timurid and their Moghul enemies in their wars over the eastern peripheries of Transoxiana. After the crushing defeat of the Timurid Sultan Ahmed Mirza, Shibani succeeded in attracting a significant following of Uzbeks which formed the powerbase from he launched his conquests.

Emerging from Sighnaq in 1499, Muhammad Shibani captured Bukhara and Samarkand in 1500. In the same year he defeated an attempt by Babur (founder of the Mughal Empire) to take Samarkand. Over the course of the next six years, Shibani and the Uzbek Sultans conquered Tashkent, Ferghana, Khwarezm and the mountainous Pamir and Badakhshan areas. In 1506, he crossed the Amu-Darya and captured Balkh. The Timurid Sultan of Herat, Husayn Bayqara moved against him however died en-route and his two squabbling sons were defeated and killed. The following year he crossed the Amu-Darya again, this time vanquishing the Timurids of Herat and Jam and subjugating the entirety of Khorasan east of Astarabad. In 1508, he raided as far south as Kerman and Kandahar, however he moved back North and launched two campaigns against the Kazakhs, but the third one launched in 1510 ended in his defeat and retreat to Samarkand at the hands of Qasim Sultan.

The Abulkhayrid conquests heralded a mass migration of over 300 000 Uzbeks to the settled regions of Central Asia from the Dasht i-Qipchak. They heralded the return of Chingissid political tradition and structures and the end of the Persianate Timurid polities which had dominated the region for the last century. It forever after changed the demographic of the region. His reign was also the last time Transoxiana was closely linked with Khorasan, as following the shiite Safavid conquests the divide between the two regions would grow into a permanent one.

In 1510, Shibani faced his end when he moved to face Ismail Safavid, who was making moves on Khorasan. Lacking the support of the Abulkhayrid Sultans, who blamed him for their defeat against the Kazakhs earlier that year, he faced Ismail anyway, where he was defeated, killed and turned into a drinking cup.

Shibani's death caused a complete reversal of the Abulkhayrid fortunes. Khorasan and the rest of his empire fell under Safavid dominion. However in Khwaresm, Sultan Budaq's old rivals the Arabshahids expelled the qizilbash and founded their own Khanate, based first in Urgench and then Khiva. In Transoxiana, Babur lost the support of the populace when he announced his conversion to Shiism and his loyalty to Shah Ismail, which allowed the Abulkhayrids to rally behind Shibani's nephew, Ubaydullah Khan and expel the Qizilbash. Nonetheless, the Abulkhayrids would never again hold as much power as they briefly did when led by Muhammad Shibani Khan.

[5mind]

Damn Thursday for stealing her idea. Now Doom has to come up with a different idea. Now she has to go big or go home. How is she gonna make Blue blush otherwise? Especially since Blue is a mechanical being and effectively can't blush. She's gotta do something really big and loud to make sure she really gets the android's fans a-going.

So, Doom thinks about all the things she knows about Blue, which... is pitifully little, when she really thinks about it. But she's still able to piece together enough, she thinks. She hopes.

Because the next time Doom meets up with Blue, she's dressed quite differently. Gone is the three-piece black suit with the silver pinstripes. In its place is a skin-tight black bunny suit, one that's very shiny, almost to the point of being reflective, complete with a fluffy bunny tail and ears. Black fishnets cover her arms and legs, and she has a white skull painted over her face, with black areas filled in around the eyes and in segments around the lips to complete the whole look. She hasn't forgone her big black ass-kicking boots, though. No, she'd rather die again than give those up, so they're a bit at odds with the rest of her outfit, but shit if she cares.

Admittedly, Doom feels terribly exposed and uncomfortable in it. But hey, if it gets Blue's attention and - most importantly - gets her heat up, that's what wins her the game here.

"Hey, Blue! What's up? Nice day," she says, casually crunching on a carrot like Bugs Bunny might. "We should go fight some crime. Cause an explosion or two. Maybe ruin some bad guy's day, ehehehe. Or, you know, we could just hang out and shoot some shit. Whatever you want. Either way, hi."

(Forrrrr the fluster me. xD)

@the-haunted-office

Try  to  fluster  my  muse.  Do  whatever  it  takes  to  make  them  blush!

Total silence greeted Doomsday right up until she spoke up first. Blue Two tilted her head owlishly. This was...an unusual get up for Doomsday.

Not that it was bad, no. Between the fishnets, the boots, the skin tight suit and the face make-up, it reminded them of the type of thing they'd have sentai villainesses wear to appeal to the older periphery demographic.

So yes, Fivemind could appreciate that. And they could appreciate a suit that's shiny. It was mostly on an aesthetic level though.

But really, the question here was why? Was there an occasion? Some form of new dress code at the Office?

"Hello. It is a nice day, yes." The usual monotone... but wait! What's this? It seemed like Blue just purposefully pried her gaze away from Doomsday's direction. Oh, yeah. The AI had realised that, through the blue ranger's optics, they had been staring. And staring was rude.

There's a soft metallic scraping noise as the android fidgetted with her hands.

"Was there a convention of some sort?"

[runthepockets]

I like how all encompassing Soldier Boy and Homelander are of Baby Boomer and Gen X masculinity. Everything Soldier Boy says is some graphic, unwarrented sex pun or innuendo, all delivered with a dismissive attitude. He bullies and belittles everyone who annoys and inconveniences him (and if you've ever met a Baby Boomer male, that's pretty much everyone), everything about him has a thin layer of defensiveness dripping all over it, and, of course, he thinks feelings are for pussies. His immediate response to seeing his biological son try to appeal to him for approval, in a way that any boy or man tries to appeal to and relate to his father, is "well, guess I gotta put you down now. Bitch." The guy was also a major tool in the racism fueled "war on drugs" endemic, much to the emotional and physical cost of one of the main characters. Pretty much his only redeeming qualities are that he wants aforementioned son dead as much as the main crew, and that when he speaks of women in that chauvanistic "I fuck girls, I don't love them" way, he's pretty much exclusively talking about women his own age, if not older.

Homelander, meanwhile, tries very hard to maintain the image of "wholesome" masculinity, in that way a lot of "successful" Gen X'ers try to; he doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, he doesn't do hookups or have random sexual endeavors* (*dude is a rapist despite all this, which is 80x worse than just being a slut who has a ton of kinky, consensual sex like the rest of the heroes do, but again, he's a wholesome American role model, earns the 1% a lot of money, and especially placates the white supremacist demographic, so.) This wins him a lot of favor with the more traditional suburban white American demographic. But every time he tries to do the stony machismo thing, he fails miserably. For all of Soldier Boys faults, his performance of masculinity seems to very earnestly align with his beliefs, even if they're all hogwash. Homelander meanwhile, just wants others to like him a lot. There's nothing behind the eyes and everyone can tell after being alone in a room with him for 4 seconds. He makes weird faces when you try to talk to him about anything outside of business, and stands around like a Mii in a plaza when he's not in the public spotlight. He's egotistical, manipulative, he throws tantrums, he's so vein that he only collaberates with white supremacists because they fuel his ego. When they start spewing their "white people are gonna be the minority in a couple of years" crap, he cringes and starts trying to turn the conversation back to himself. He brings out the worst of humanity by adhereing to this image of rugged individualist, materialist, competitive patriarchy that so many guys are prone to falling into.

It's a really fascinating thing to see as an outsider looking in, and I think it's a really good metaphor. When I speak to (most) white men old enough to be my grandfather for long enough, it feels like talking to Soldier Boy. When I speak to (most) white men old enough to be my stepdad for long enough, it feels like talking to Homelander. I mean, if you're the 90% of Americans who aren't straight, white, upper class men, you've seen how fixated this country is on uplifting and plastering successful men of those demographics anywhere and everywhere, much to the detriment of the rest of us (which The Boys also goes into, through the periphery of a bunch of characters rather than just a singular token character. Even the one rich black guy is clearly going through a lot of shit and gets fucked over and targeted in ways that his white peers don't), but I've yet to see a show that balances that so well with the idea that these guys are also severely fucked up, unhappy, and undisciplined individuals. Like, I think if anyone was basically born and treated as a labrat throughout their formative years, and then expected to just be the forefront of every major pop cultural movement, with no affection or emotional check ins the way Homelander is, they'd probably also be the same degree of "malfunctioning cyborg trying to win the broader public's opinion" that he is. There's also no way Soldier Boy is happy blowing through other human beings like cigarettes, being alone with himself after the cool action movie stuff is no longer necessary and the cameras turn off. Again, though, a lot of us go days without eating, and can't leave the house without being sexually harrassed, or experiencing some sort of microagression, and those guys also really like killing people for fun, so like. Tough titties. Change your habits or you are going to pass away.

[regallibellbright]

WIP Whenever

Clearly Dead's just here as a backup protagonist because they were worried about a kid appeal protagonist alienating the kids in the older bracket of the target demographic and their hefty periphery demographic. What about that is so hard to understand?

Slammer 4 Life: Dude. What show did you watch?

Garuda: Isn't this the same user who did the "Dead Slammurai And Daisuke Are Different People" theory? I thought they were banned?

Rainbow Cape: I don't know why, since I was right.

--

I have been waiting for so long to get to this moment, you have no idea.

(Reel and Deal, Chapter Seven)

[collapsedsquid]

The end of colonial empires in the 1960s and the end of Stalinist (“state socialist,” “state capitalist,” “bureaucratic collectivist”) systems in the 1990s has triggered a process never encountered since the Mongolian invasions in the thirteenth century: a comprehensive and apparently irreversible collapse of established statehood as such. While the bien-pensant Western press daily bemoans perceived threats of dictatorship in far-away places, it usually ignores the reality behind the tough talk of powerless leaders, namely that nobody is prepared to obey them. The old, creaking, and unpopular nation-state—the only institution to date that had been able to grant civil rights, a modicum of social assistance, and some protection from the exactions of privateer gangs and rapacious, irresponsible business elites—ceased to exist or never even emerged in the majority of the poorest areas of the world. In most parts of sub-Saharan Africa and of the former Soviet Union not only the refugees, but the whole population could be considered stateless. The way back, after decades of demented industrialization (see the horrific story of the hydroelectric plants everywhere in the Third World and the former Eastern bloc), to a subsistence economy and “natural” barter exchanges in the midst of environmental devastation, where banditry seems to have become the only efficient method of social organization, leads exactly nowhere. People in Africa and ex-Soviet Eurasia are dying not by a surfeit of the state, but by the absence of it.

Traditionally, liberation struggles of any sort have been directed against entrenched privilege. Equality came at the expense of ruling groups: secularism reduced the power of the Princes of the Church, social legislation dented the profits of the “moneyed interest,” universal franchise abolished the traditional political class of landed aristocracy and the noblesse de robe the triumph of commercial pop culture smashed the ideological prerogatives of the progressive intelligentsia, horizontal mobility and suburban sprawl ended the rule of party politics on the local level, contraception and consumerist hedonism dissolved patriarchal rule in the family—something lost, something gained. Every step toward greater freedom curtailed somebody’s privileges (quite apart from the pain of change). It was conceivable to imagine the liberation of outlawed and downtrodden lower classes through economic, political, and moral crusades: there was, crudely speaking, somebody to take ill-gotten gains from. And those gains could be redistributed to more meritorious sections of the population, offering in exchange greater social concord, political tranquility, and safety to unpopular, privileged elites, thereby reducing class animosity. But let us not forget though that the social-democratic bargain has been struck as a result of centuries of conflict and painful renunciations by the traditional ruling strata. Such a liberation struggle, violent or peaceful, is not possible for the new wretched of the earth.

Nobody exploits them. There is no extra profit and surplus value to be appropriated. There is no social power to be monopolized. There is no culture to be dominated. The poor people of the new stateless societies—from the “homogeneous” viewpoint—are totally superfluous. They are not exploited, but neglected. There is no overtaxation, since there are no revenues. Privileges cannot be redistributed toward a greater equality since there are no privileges, except the temporary ones to be had, occasionally, at gunpoint.

Famished populations have no way out from their barely human condition but to leave. The so-called center, far from exploiting this periphery of the periphery, is merely trying to keep out the foreign and usually colored destitutes (the phenomenon is euphemistically called “demographic pressure”) and set up awesome barriers at the frontiers of rich countries, while our international financial bureaucracy counsels further deregulation, liberalization, less state and less government to nations that do not have any, and are perishing in consequence. “Humanitarian wars” are fought in order to prevent masses of refugees from flowing in and cluttering up the Western welfare systems that are in decomposition anyway.

Citizenship in a functional nation-state is the one safe meal ticket in the contemporary world. But such citizenship is now a privilege of the very few. The Enlightenment assimilation of citizenship to the necessary and “natural” political condition of all human beings has been reversed. Citizenship was once upon a time a privilege within nations. It is now a privilege to most persons in some nations. Citizenship is today the very exceptional privilege of the inhabitants of flourishing capitalist nation-states, while the majority of the world’s population cannot even begin to aspire to the civic condition, and has also lost the relative security of pre-state (tribe, kinship) protection.

The scission of citizenship and sub-political humanity is now complete, the work of Enlightenment irretrievably lost. Post-fascism does not need to put non-citizens into freight trains to take them into death; instead, it need only prevent the new non-citizens from boarding any trains that might take them into the happy world of overflowing rubbish bins that could feed them. Post-fascist movements everywhere, but especially in Europe, are anti-immigration movements, grounded in the “homogeneous” world-view of productive usefulness. They are not simply protecting racial and class privileges within the nation-state (although they are doing that, too) but protecting universal citizenship within the rich nation-state against the virtual-universal citizenship of all human beings, regardless of geography, language, race, denomination, and habits. The current notion of “human rights” might defend people from the lawlessness of tyrants, but it is no defense against the lawlessness of no rule.

[orcbara]

the number one aspect of media literacy that will prevent you from saying deeply embarrassing things is understanding what target audiences and periphery demographics are