#public discourse analysis

[airwavesdotblog]

Prime Minister of Slovakia Survives Assassination Attempt Amidst Political Turmoil

Summary: Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico was shot multiple times near the Parliament building in Bratislava on May 15, 2024. The incident occurred after a political event, and the Prime Minister was quickly transported to the hospital. He is currently i

Summary: Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico was shot multiple times near the Parliament building in Bratislava on May 15, 2024. The incident occurred after a political event, and the Prime Minister was quickly transported to the hospital. He is currently in serious but stable condition. A suspect, described as a ‘lone wolf,’ has been charged with the shooting. Analysis: The shooting of Prime…

[lenodrysalad]

"Eddie said he's straight! Buck said Eddie was straight! Buck said he's not in love with his best friend! They shut down Buddie in the show it isn't happening ya'll are delusional! Queerbait! Queerbait! Blah blah blah"

I feel like I'm going insane. I'm sure we're all tired of people shouting "media literacy" every five seconds, but like... Yeah, develop some media literacy, please.

I'm saying this as someone who doesn't usually like romance, despite being subjected to it in basically every piece of media. As someone who doesn't generally look for love stories. As someone who loved Buddie but didn't consider any serious possibility of it becoming canon before season 7/8, who refused to believe Buddie was truly happening until I couldn't deny it anymore: this episode is loud.

Please understand how narrative arcs work. How character arcs work. How character development works. How serial broadcast television works. Understand how writing works. Consider context; take the whole episode, the whole season, and the whole series into account instead of treating things like they exist in isolation.

I'm too tired to go through the step-by-step details of the episode to prove why these, "they said it on screen, therefore..." takes are shortsighted and ignorant; plenty of people have done that already.

But that episode, even if we do take it in isolation, is textbook. Do people really take everything characters say at face value? Do people not watch other character's reactions? Listen to what else is being said? Watch what is being shown? Consider the implications? Themes? Narrative devices?

Consider that maybe, just maybe, characters can be unreliable narrators, or believe something to be true only for that belief to change later. These things don't happen in one episode. There's such a thing as set-up, foreshadowing, the starting point of a plot. 911 is a serial drama, therefore it is going to have A) long-form story and character arcs, and B) drama.

Characters are not going to move in straight lines, or talk in therapy speak, or solve every problem in an hour. They are not always going to be right, or self-aware, or truthful, or rational. Direct dialogue does not equate to honest dialogue.

Also, saying, "well in real life, people do this, I do that, their feelings would be this, yadda yadda yadda" means nothing. Your experiences are not universal, and more importantly, this is a work of fiction. Realism is whatever the story says it is; it's going to do whatever creates the most dramatic, interesting, developmentally beneficial, or emotionally satisfying story. Whether you like that story or not is irrelevant to the fact that stories are not going to cater to all your expectations or real-world experiences.

To people pointing to Tim or the actor's interviews as "proof" they're shutting down Buddie: again, please understand how broadcast television works. They are not going to tell us everything that's going to happen before it happens. They are going to play the neutral zone, the "wait and see," the "will they/won't they." They are going to lie. That is television production 101. You can compare what they've said in the past with canon and list all the contradictions, misdirection, and twists you didn't see coming because they didn't spoil it for you. Watch the show. That is the canon.

They're also not catering to fandom--people they already know are devoted to the show, familiar with Buddie, and consistently tuning in. They're introducing the idea of Buddie to the general audience, people who likely haven't considered the possibility before. The GA has to see that Buddie is an option, so the show needs to manifest it as if it's a brand new concept. This episode pulled the pin on that grenade in a very obvious way; the idea that Buck could be in love with Eddie and that Eddie could not be straight has been planted. The next seed will be Eddie's feelings. Now the show needs to water it and let it grow.

One last thing. Been seeing a fair amount of hand-wringing and condescension over people interpreting this episode differently. As if this is some sort of "gotcha" for bad writing, baiting, or people being stupid. Listen, genuine complaints about this show's writing aside, different interpretations or inferences are completely normal. This isn't unique. That is how people interact with stories, through personal biases, experiences, emotions, and expectations. That isn't inherently a bad thing. It's totally fine to have your own views; media is all about interpretation.

However, it is also true that just because you have an interpretation, that doesn't make it true. Not all interpretations are equal in their validity, evidence, or warrants. The show has an intention, it has a story in mind. If you don't see it, sure, that could be a failure of the writing, but it could also very well be a failure of your analysis, especially when the show hasn't finished telling the story. Looking at one thing in isolation and forming your whole conclusion based around that makes for poor critique.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see who's right.

[my-deer-friend]

This is supposed to be the queer weirdos website and yet the standard of proof on here for whether a historical figure was queer is higher than in most academic contexts.

[helenvaughans]

i’m not the first to say this but elon musk is really a perfect example of why studying the humanities is important

[scrumptiouswordsthings]

Mass Hysteria & Dark Academia Connections

Hysteria & Women have a long and tense relationship (not going to dive deep here - if you just type those words into a search engine you will see *so many* results). However, there's plenty of interesting commentary on the power behind or because of mass hsyteria.

The Salem Witch trials are a popular proving ground for this in American media. The Crucible by Arthur Miller is the tip of the iceberg here. I want to point out two recent works of media that home in on the intersection of mass hysteria and the academia - specifically high school girls and who gets believes/who gets to speak up in the public arena.

Conversion by Katherine Howe is a 2015 dark academia YA novel with a dual narrative. One takes place in a 21st century intense all-girls college prep school, St Joans while the other takes the same story from Miller's The Crucible and alters the narrative perspective. These two narratives weave back and forth on each other with the main narrator in the 21st century even reading and analyzing The Crucible to form her own conclusions on what is going on with the girls at her school. Howe was inspired to write the novel when 16 girls in nearby LeRoy, NY all ended up experiencing a slew of similar physical symptoms. The book takes a deep look at what controls the lives of young women and what power these girls hold over their own lives and voices in both the modern day and earlier in American history. I can't say it is a favorite book of mine, but what Howe has done is fascinating! If you have any interest in public perception of hysteria I'd adore hearing what you think of the book.

Now onto the film - The Falling is a 2014 British mystery film starring Maisie Williams (oh, and introducing Florence Pugh so it looks a little star-studded in retrospect). It is an unsettling film that is, similarly to the 21st century timeline of Conversion, set at an all-girls school. It follows two best friends, a growing obsession, and power and control regarding sexuality. Then death and mysterious fainting spells increase resulting in psychiatric wards and the shutdown of the school. Sex, power, death, friendship, and yes, hysteria, all feature on screen here.

Together it is fascinating to lump together and connect the thread (and the mental thought is perhaps stirred as I also just read Mary Beard's Women & Power about who gets to speak in the works of the classical Western literary canon) of The Crucible by Arthur Miller, Conversion by Katherine Howe, and The Falling directed by Carol Morley. Perception, belief, hysteria, and female power concoct some fascinating discussion about voices in today's world.

[sausaged-rat]

Being a lowly “assistant” research scientist at the meeting where all the big boys are discussing our research methods

[firstoccupier]

No NATO

Understanding the Impact of Nuclear Armament on American Culture and Society Before September 11, 2001, a magazine article suggested that the Bush Administration contemplated dismantling the United States’ nuclear arsenal. In a post-9/11 world, acknowledging such discussions might imply vulnerability and weakness, prompting a reticence to revisit these archives. Despite inquiries, the article…

[tmarshconnors]

Debate and Caring for Our Future

Politics has always been a profound interest of mine. It’s not just a subject; it’s a lens through which I view the world and understand the dynamics that shape our lives. As an ENTP (personality trait), I thrive on engaging with diverse perspectives, and I believe that robust debate is essential to navigating the complexities of our political landscape.

I care deeply about where we are heading as a society. The decisions made by our leaders and the policies enacted affect us all, from the ground level to the highest echelons of power. It’s not just about ideology; it’s about the real impact on people’s lives. I often find myself reflecting on questions like: Are we moving towards a more equitable society? Are the voices of the marginalised being heard? What are the implications of our current political decisions on future generations? These questions drive my passion for politics.

One of the things I enjoy most is the exchange of ideas. Whether it’s a casual conversation with friends or a more formal debate, I relish the opportunity to discuss and dissect political theories and policies. As an ENTP, I’m wired to challenge assumptions and explore new angles. I often play the devil's advocate, not just to win an argument but to encourage critical thinking and deeper understanding. I believe that the best way to grow is through exposure to differing viewpoints, and I find that engaging in debate sharpens my own beliefs while expanding my knowledge.

Of course, the political landscape today can be incredibly polarised, making meaningful dialogue more challenging than ever. However, I see this as an opportunity. It’s crucial to bridge divides and foster discussions that focus on solutions rather than differences. While emotions run high, I strive to remain grounded in facts and to encourage others to do the same. 

Ultimately, my passion for politics is about more than just intellectual engagement; it’s about caring for our collective future. I want to contribute to a society that values informed discourse and encourages participation from all. Politics shapes our reality, and it’s essential that we engage with it actively and thoughtfully. By debating, discussing, and sharing our ideas, we can collectively forge a path toward a better tomorrow.

In this ever-changing political landscape, let’s embrace our differences and work together to create a future that reflects our shared values and aspirations. After all, politics isn’t just a game of power—it’s about the lives we lead and the world we leave behind.

[mmochammoss]

Fan behavior

Izuku Midoriya had burner accounts. Plural.

Some were obvious, like the ones he used to scroll through hero discourse on Twitter or reply to fans anonymously. But some were…

more specific.

A private Instagram that followed pro-hero fanpages, analysis pages, and even a few shipping accounts. A Reddit username dedicated to lurking in threads like r/heroranks and r/candidproheroes. A TikTok profile with zero posts but a very suspiciously curated ‘likes’ tab.

He had always been like this. Always online. Always watching. Not in a creepy way, just in a lifelong fanboy kind of way. Most people assumed he didn’t have time for any of that anymore now that he was the number-four hero. But Deku made time.

Especially when it came to you.

You had taken the hero world by storm. All strength, grace, and confidence, with a quirk that could split pavement and a smile that could break the internet.

He remembered watching your first solo billboard debut while eating convenience store snacks on the rooftop of a building at two in the morning, freezing mid-bite because you looked that good.

You were always beautiful. Always capable. Always you. And he was always… just a little bit obsessed.

Not in a weird way, of course.

You were old classmates. Friends. You had trained together, cried together, fought alongside one another back in the U.A. days. You’d even defended him online after his first public interview when his voice cracked halfway through a sentence.

You’d always been sweet to him. Gentle. Supportive.

He used to chalk up his crush on you to proximity. Just another harmless high school thing. Everyone had one, right?

But his thoughts of you didn’t fade the way most high school crushes were supposed to.

They only grew.

And now, years later, every time your face popped up on the side of a building or in his timeline, he remembered just how thoroughly and hopelessly he had not grown out of it.

Especially when he saw the fan content. And there was always so, so, so much of it.

It made total sense to him though. You were internet gold.

There were memes. There were fancams. There were reaction edits, deep-dives, lore threads, shipping compilations, whole Discord servers dedicated to analyzing your every move and wondering which pro hero you might be dating (if any).

Izuku tried not to pay too much attention.

Until one night, curled up in bed after patrol, scrolling on one of his private burner accounts, when he saw it. A fan edit titled simply:

“She looks at him like that’s her favorite person alive.”

It was under some viral TikTok audio, something soft and emotional.

The clips were nothing special on their own. Moments pulled from interviews, red carpet footage, post-battle recaps.

But they were all of you and him.

You glancing at him across a press panel. Smiling at something he’d said in an old agency interview. A photo someone had taken where you had your hand on his shoulder after a tough mission, face full of quiet pride.

And his favorite:

A short clip where you’d been asked about what hero inspired you most these days.

You had smiled, eyes soft, and answered,

“Ouuuuu? Who inspires me the most?… Probably Deku! I look at all he’s done and all he’s gone through and it reminds me that I can always push harder, do more, be better, y’know?”

He watched it three times.

Then a fourth.

Smiling through every rewatch, until…

“Shit.”

He threw his phone onto the bed, face hot, heart racing. He stared up at the ceiling and groaned.

Because he knew. He finally, finally knew. This wasn’t just some crush anymore.

He’d liked you once, of course.

Back in school, it was simple. You were warm, kind, devastatingly beautiful, and you always treated him like he mattered, even when he barely believed it himself.

But this? This was different. It wasn’t admiration. It wasn’t innocent. It was full-body want.

The kind that lived in his soul, tight and aching, every time your name lit up his feed. And God, he felt so guilty for it sometimes.

Because you were more than beautiful.

You were brilliant. Respected. One of the top heroes in the country. And a good person. And he admired you for that. He did.

But sometimes…

Sometimes he just wanted to imagine you whispering his name.

Not “Deku.” Not “Midoriya.” Izuku.

He wanted to hate himself for how his mind wandered. For how badly he wanted to touch you. To kiss you. To pull you into his lap and feel your fingers drag through his hair as he got drunk on your lips.

He wanted your body wrapped around him after long missions. Your thighs warm against his sides. Your mouth against his skin. Your voice soft with pleasure, telling him just how much you’d missed him.

And worse than all of that? He wanted you to want him back. Not as a coworker. Not as a friend. But as something real.

He rolled over onto his stomach, face burning as he buried it in the pillow and groaned. He shouldn’t think like this. He knew better. But it was too late.

Because it wasn’t just about how badly he wanted to kiss you anymore. It was about how deeply, desperately, helplessly he was in love with you. Not some idealized version of you. Not the you from glossy spreads or high-res fan edits.

You.

The way your nose scrunched when you laughed. The way you chewed on pen caps when thinking. The way you’d always text him congratulations after a good mission, even when he hadn’t spoken to you in weeks.

You were real.

And he wanted you in every way a person could be wanted. He felt ashamed of it. Guilty. Like he was crossing some unspoken line just for thinking it. But how could he not?

How could he not dream of kissing you until your knees gave out? Of holding you so close he’d feel your heartbeat match his? Of letting you ride the high of your shared victories straight into his arms, or his bed, into something so perfect it made his brain short-circuit?

He wanted you. He was so far gone.

Maybe, someday, if he could stop hiding behind burner accounts and start being brave again he’d tell you.

And if you let him, he’d love you for real. Not from a distance. Not through a screen. Not like a fan.

Like a man who wanted to be completely and totally yours.

[transmutationisms]

genq what are the actual reasons that plagiarism is bad apart from profit and prestige?

so there are two main angles i usually think of here, which ultimately converge into some related issues in public discourse and knowledge production.

firstly, plagiarism should not just be understood as a violation one individual perpetuates against another; it has a larger role in processes of epistemological violence and suppression of certain people's arguments, ideas, and labour. consider the following three examples of plagiarism that is not at all counter to current structures of knowledge production, but rather undergirds them:

in colonial expeditions and encounters from roughly the 14th century onward, a repeated and common practice among european explorer-naturalists was to rely on indigenous people's knowledge of botany, geography, natural history, and so forth, but to then go on to publish this knowledge in their own native tongues (meaning most of the indigenous people they had learned from could not access, read, or respond to such publications), with little, vague, or no attribution to their correspondents, guides, hosts, &c. (many many examples; allison bigelow's 'mining language' discusses this in 16th and 17th century american mining, with a linguistic analysis foregrounded)

throughout the renaissance and early modern period, in contexts where european women were generally not welcome to seek university education, it was nonetheless common practice for men of science to rely on their wives, sisters, and other family members not just to keep house, but also to contribute to their scientific work as research assistants, translators, fund-raisers, &c. attribution practices varied but it is very commonly the case that when (if ever) historians revisit the biographies of famous men of science, they discover women around these men who were actively contributing to their intellectual work, to an extent previously unknown or downplayed (off the top of my head, marie-anne lavoisier; emma darwin; caroline herschel; rosalie lamarck; mileva marić-einstein...)

it is standard practice today for university professors to run labs where their research assistants are grad students and postdocs; to rely on grad students, undergrads, and postdocs to contribute to book projects and papers; and so forth. again, attribution varies, but generally speaking the credit for academic work goes to the faculty member at the head of the project, maybe with a few research assistants credited secondarily, and the rest of the lab / department / project uncredited or vaguely thanked in the acknowledgments.

in all of these cases, you can see how plagiarism is perpetuated by pre-existing inequities and structures of exploitation, and in turn helps perpetuate those structures by continuing to discursively erase the existence of people made socially marginal in the process of knowledge production. so, what's at stake here is more than just the specific individuals whose work has been presented as someone else's discovery (though of course this is unjust already!); it's also the structural factors that make academic and intellectual discourse an élite, exclusive activity that most people are barred from participating in. a critique of plagiarism therefore needs to move beyond the idea that a number of wronged individuals ought to be credited for their ideas (though again, they should be) and instead turn to the structures that create positions of epistemological authority under the aegis of capitalist entities: universities, legacy as well as new media outlets, and so forth. the issue here is the positions of prestige themselves, regardless of who holds them; they are, definitionally, not instruments of justice or open discourse.

secondly, there's the effect plagiarism has on public discourse and the dissemination of knowledge. this is an issue because plagiarism by definition obscures the circulation and origin of ideas, as well as a full understanding of the labour process that produces knowledge. you can see in the above examples how the attribution of other people's ideas as your own works to turn you into a mythologised sort of lone genius figure, whose role is now to spread your brilliance unidirectionally to the masses. as a result, the vast majority of people are now doubly shut out of any public discourse or debate, except as passive recipients of articles, posts, &c. you can't trace claims easily, you don't see the vast number of people who actually contribute to any given idea, and this all works to protect the class and professional interests of the select few who do manage to attain élite intellectual status, by reinforcing and widening the created gap between expert and layperson (a distinction that, again, tracks heavily along lines of race, gender, and so forth).

so you can see how these two issues really are part of one and the same structural problem, which is knowledge production as a tool of power, and one that both follows from and reinforces existing class hierarchies. in truth, knowledge is usually a collaborative affair (who among us has ever had a truly original idea...) and attributions should be a way of both acknowledging our debts to other people, and creating transparency in our efforts to stake claims and develop ideas. but, as long as there are benefits, both economic and social, to be gained from presenting yourself as an originator of knowledge, people will continue to be incentivised to do this. plagiarism is not an exception or an aberration; it's at best a very predictable outcome of the operating logics of this 'knowledge economy', and at worst—as in the examples above—a normal part of how expert knowledge is produced, and its value protected, in a system that is by design inequitable and exclusive.

[redstonedust]

i think something that gets lost in the discourse around "egg jokes" is that a lot of the original discussion was centered around streamers and public figures.

like i do think if someone is experimenting with gender expression and they immidiately get an entire twitch chat's worth of people joking that they must be a woman, then sure that can hinder their ability to explore their gender comfortably and potentially push them back into the closet. thats less a problem with the jokes themselves and more to do with chat boundaries and parasocialism.

but the majority of what gets labelled as egg jokes is... not that? its usually trans women lightly joking with friends that someone may be like them. its well meaning encouragement to explore gender. they're not calling you a girl like a gradeschool bully would because they're not equating womanhood with weakness and negativity. and if you're cis and your reaction to the idea that you may be trans is discomfort you should do some self analysis on why you think being trans would be such a bad thing.

dont get me wrong we should be wary of reinforcing gender binaries and implying that only girls like girl things and only boys like boy things, but i think trans people opening their arms to the possibility of more trans people is.... not that. no trans person is trying to stop men from being feminine. and unless it's happening on a large scale like has been seen with a few high profile internet celebrities in the past, then its really not anything to get up in arms about.

[cuephrase]

as someone who loves comics, hell as someone who got into this fandom because of comics, the comics-reading fandom commentary i keep running into that seems set on villainizing non-comics reading and fanon-enjoying members of fandom by complaining about the fic that gets published is seriously exhausting at best and deeply frustrating at its worst.

and let me preface this by saying, if you actually want to try and analyze perceived trends in good faith, by all means, do your fandom meta, so long as you are not treating other people like problems that require solutions. the solution starts with you. focus on changing your mindset from that of entitlement to appreciation. you are not owed quality fic- whatever that looks like to you. a fic not being to your preference doesn’t make it any less a labor of love, a creation that someone spent their free time putting together and sharing.

also i do scroll/block. i am not being “forced” to engage with this rhetoric. still, the prevalence disheartens me because this attitude runs in direct contradiction to what my understanding of fandom/ao3 is.

is fandom not the space to have fun with our blorbos? to share headcanons and art and analysis and connect with those who share our love and vision? do you forget that the A in AO3 stands for Archive? that the T in OTW stands for Transformative? why is it so offensive for someone to write and post a fic, to an archive, that is OOC to you that you have to complain about it in a public tumblr post? why does seeing someone enjoy and/or create something you dislike warrant you going to the town square and bitching? what gives you the authority to tell someone whether or not they deserve to exist in the fandom? are we not all guests?

just because we’re all in one fandom doesn’t mean you are the target audience for every creation. especially in big fandoms, where the breadth of interpretations is vast. like. you do know that even if every person who posted a batman fic read the comics, you still wouldn’t like every fic? something not being canon to you, while perfectly valid, doesn’t change the fact that it is or was canon and therefore may very well be canon to someone else. and vice versa! not to mention that someone can read the exact same comics and reach an entirely different conclusion. they can love the same character and see them totally differently.

y’all stroll up to a sprawling potluck, see some dishes you dislike, and start crashing out like. pause for a second. damn. you don’t have to eat any of that!! i don’t really care if you have a hard time finding fic you like, because, what? you think that makes you special? do you want a medal or consolation prize for doing what literally everyone who uses ao3 has to do to find fic they like if they’re picky? should i marvel at your commitment to only consuming that which has the finest of characterization, the most artful prose, the deepest, most esoteric insights? give me a break. what a first world problem.

“but they’re not even really fans of-” shut up. just shut up. keep that stuff in dms or the appropriate discord servers. private places where someone can’t accidentally stumble across them and get hurt. people come to fandom for so many reasons, why risk ruining something that is bringing someone comfort and community just because you dislike seeing blorbo written that way?

yes, it is up to individuals to curate the experience they have in fandom. it is their prerogative to block/scroll/not click on that fic that is clearly tagged with something they dislike. but it is not up to you to try and curate the Fandom itself. do you see the difference? you can make your own discord server and decide the rules, you can make your own archive and decide the TOS, you can and should make your space a space you enjoy being in. but the Fandom as a whole? that’s not yours.

like tagging is a very important part of good etiquette on ao3 imo, but the discourse over what fic can/should be has gotten so out of hand that my friend, who loves superboy and reads his comics, worries about what fandom tag to use for their fics that aren't canon compliant. hell, i tag all my fics that do not directly deal with a comics canon incident as "Batman - All Media Types" and not "[Character] Comics", even though i've read tons of comics and they are solely what i base my characterization off of because i'm paranoid about someone coming into my comments and giving me grief about it not being canon accurate enough, or being the inspiration of a vaguepost. what a sad environment that has been built. why should there be any stress over whether a transformative work belongs under the applicable fandom tags? what a bastardization of fandom etiquette to push for people to only tag with X fandom if they've "earned" it, if the fic is something that a Real fan would want to read. dgmw, i'm grateful that the Batman - AMT tag still exists, i think it's an extremely useful catchall, but the way that people weaponize the fandom tags is just so disappointing. and also? honestly? a little chronically online. because it presumes that ao3 authors will also be present on other fandom spaces to know the "rules", which is absurd. someone should not need to be involved on tumblr, or any other site, to know how to tag on ao3. following the rules as outlined on ao3 itself should be sufficient.

“well i enjoy venting-” yes, okay, i’m sorry that you lack the empathy to understand why your actions are discourteous. and like, to be crystal clear, i am strictly opposing vent posts/vagueblogging that calls out/complains about fic specificially. stuff like “i’m so sick of seeing people write X fic” or “saw this fic, why would anyone write a fic like this?” it’s not a legitimate question. it’s not a legitimate question, because the answer is simple even if you dislike it. they wrote it because they wanted to. that’s the only reason anyone needs to write a fic. and guess what, the great thing is that there’s an equally simple answer for why someone may not want to read a fic- because they don’t want to!

not that it matters, but i’m not saying this because i just love every single part of fanon and every fic is right up my alley- no. not only am i incredibly picky, but my tastes have shifted over time. past me adored some fics that i would scroll right past now- and those fics aren’t bad, i can re-read the ones i remembered to bookmark and see why i liked them. and i read fics now that past me would/did scroll past. i just don’t think my personal enjoyment of a fic should have any bearing on whether or not that fic should be allowed to exist- unless ofc, it’s my own fic. and even then, i, personally, orphan stuff, i don’t delete akdhfkdhf.

we are all guests. we are all playing with IP we don’t own. we do a disservice to ourselves and others when we forget that.

[apas-95]

This website has a general trend of eclecticism - beliefs are collected, like patches on a punk's jacket, from thought-leaders and clique gestalt. A lack of systemic analysis can lead to contradictory positions (like simultaneously thinking people who play loud music on the bus should be beaten, but those having public sex should be given an ovation), but the real core of the issue is a refusal to adopt certain positions.

In the sea of ideas here, there is a general aversion to theories and principles of socialist governance. Of revolution, open class warfare, we can find some (though mostly on the slant end of libertarianism), but the notion of holding power is taboo. Things can be analysed from an interpersonal lens, of politeness and persecution; or they can be analysed as they exist under capitalism. Socialism does not exist, here.

It's true that actually dealing with the issues is difficult - take the matter of disability assistance, an inflammatory and charged topic. We can approach this safely in the negative, and affirm that the bourgeois state carries out what little welfare it has been coerced into by the labour movement (what little it finds useful for the maintenance of bourgeois order) very poorly and harmfully, with features such as means testing among the most egregious. We can also avoid the topic entirely, take it on a personal and individual level and foregoe systemic analysis. What we cannot do is propose a positive analysis, a socialist policy on the matter.

As soon as we handle issues with the intent of actually being the party in power - not the perpetual underdog, not the revolutionary or rebellious citizen - the discourse breaks down, and disparate, eclectic beliefs are forced against each other. Necessarily, one or the other (or both) must be done away with. This is unconscionable. For this reason, to protect these incoherent beliefs, it is both unfashionable and generally rude to espouse socialist policy on tumblr.

[epsiphi]

so i saw THIS image online courtesy of twitter user @/offpridbird and it inspired me to look into the criteria for each of these disorders, and how they might fit him, so…

welcome to

My Analysis On Whether or Not Goro Akechi Has a Cluster B Personality Disorder (According to the DSM-V)

(this is a long post that took up TWELVE pages in my notebook so the nitty gritty is under the cut. tl;dr, there’s evidence in favor of all these)

now you might ask: what are your qualifications? to that i say: i’m a psychology student* who also happens to be a big fan of goro akechi. which is to say that i am not an expert; i just really like this fictional guy. my analysis is also based on my personal understanding of his character. so, you know, don’t flay me alive if i get a part of his character wrong. or do.

*high school

in case you don’t know what a cluster b personality disorder is: it’s a subset of personality disorders characterized by “dramatic, emotional, or erratic” behavior. it includes:

antisocial personality disorder (ASPD)

borderline personality disorder (BPD)

narcissistic personality disorder (NPD)

histrionic personality disorder (HPD).

this post covers ASPD, BPD, and NPD, because those are the disorders i’ve seen most ascribed to akechi. i might cover HPD some other time.

(also yes i seriously perused a copy of the dsm-v for this)

Borderline Personality Disorder

1. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment: we’re looking at mr. “I was extremely particular about my life…my grades…my public image…so someone would want me around!” over here. it’s made pretty clear that akechi’s perfect persona wasn’t something he just started doing when he became famous; it started after his mother died, once he was being “passed around from foster home to foster home”. he tried to be perfect so they would want him. it’s clear that none of them did.

2. A pattern of unstable and intense relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation: the only real relationships akechi has are with joker (no canon name discourse here) and shido. it goes without saying that neither of these relationships are very normal; on akechi’s part, both are characterized by his obsessions and love-hate feelings. akechi does also kind of have an idealizing issue with joker (putting him on a pedestal—which is admittedly something most characters do, but i feel like akechi is not any more normal about joker than anyone else)

3. Identity disturbance (markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self): i feel like this guy cycles between “i was cut from the cloth of god” and “i am the scum of the earth”. in thirdsem, he does not seem to have much of a self beneath his detective prince persona (by which i mean he’s very…blank? just look at his default portrait. very blunt and to the point)

4. Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g. spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating): none of these apply in canon. he does seem to have issues with food (forgetting to eat, apparently eating little, not caring about the taste of what he eats vs. the appearance of it, he runs a food blog but it appears to be mostly for show). choosing to become a hitman for a comically evil politician who is also your father at age 15 would qualify for self-damaging, but might also fall under…

5. Recurrent suicidal behavior/gestures/threats, or self-mutilating behaviors: his revenge plan is so bad it’s borderline suicidal—not in the sense that he actively planned to kill himself afterwards or anything, but in the sense of he spent so long fantasizing about getting revenge that he literally never stopped to think about the day after. not envisioning a meaningful future is also suicidal.

6. Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood: this confused the hell out of me at first. it essentially means rapid, intense mood shifts. i’m…not sure, actually. (i guess you could count the insane difference between his self in battle vs himself out of battle in thirdsem as this, but i’m not the guy who can answer that).

7. Chronic feelings of emptiness: remember that thieves den conversation where yusuke mentions how difficult keeping up an act for a long stretch of time is (in reference to the pts pretending not to know the truth about akechi in sae’s palace) and akechi responds with “Is that so? Well, you stop feeling things once you get used to it”? because i do. (note the use of a word as general as things) (also veering into hc: i’ve seen people say akechi’s sin, had his palace not been cut, likely would’ve been acedia, which is…indifference. emptiness.)

8. Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger: have you seen the engine room. i think it’s always there, it’s just that he’s good at controlling it 98% of the time.

9. Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms: kind of on the fence about this one—leaning towards yes. i think this sort of applies to the interrogation room? he moves through a lot of it vaguely shocked + a few subsequent tv interviews. in the one soonest after 11/20–the “same strategy used in romance” interview—he has an oddly flat affect, which is funny given the context of how he’s being lauded as hero. like…he can’t even pretend to be happier. in the interview that occurs during the infiltration of shido’s palace (“none of these people know i was an undesirable child”) he mentions how the news of joker’s suicide was dizzying—obviously he’s lying about WHY it was dizzying, but he still appears to mean it.

Total criteria fulfilled: 7/9. (Criterion 1, 2, 3, either 4 or 5 could be considered fulfilled but not both at once, 7, 8, 9)

for clarification: any suicidal behavior under criterion 5 cannot be counted in criterion 4. so if you consider “becoming a hitman for his scraped-off-the-boot-of-the-devil father at 15” as self-damaging but not suicidal, then criterion 4 is fulfilled. if you consider it suicidal behavior, then criterion 5 is fulfilled.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance: not sure how to describe this one other than “you know it bitch”

2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love: in my notebook i literally just wrote “yeah” for this. because i don’t have any articulated reason for this belief, i won’t count it as fulfilled criteria. but know i believe it

3. Believes that they are “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or associate with, other special or high status people: by his own admission (confidant rank 2), akechi does not have friends—or as he says, “people i’d actively choose to see in my free time”. it’s not for lack of people who’d want to be his friend; this is in june, people are raving about him. so he probably has a million connections and people who’d love to hang out with him, but he doesn’t want to hang out with a bunch of nobodies. his trait in the artbook is that he gets distracted in conversation, which is a very light way of saying that he doesn’t pay attention to people because they’re boring and not worth the time. joker falls under “other special people”. also, on “believes they’re special”: there’s something to be said about how akechi awakens to his persona 2 years before canon, and how he was totally on his own. like, as far as he knew, he was the only person with these powers—the only person without a shadow, and as such, the only person without distorted desires. so naturally he would consider himself special. (ignoring that he literally kind of is)

4. Requires excessive admiration: guy who has spent whole life internalizing that he is inherently unlovable and worthless becomes a celebrity and puts up a perfect front because he needs people to love him; more at 9. (dsm-v also states: “Their self-esteem is invariably very fragile. They may be preoccupied with how well they are doing and how favorably they are regarded by others”. obviously. hello, 8/28)

5. Has a sense of entitlement (i.e. unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment): great time to bring up Relative Deprivation Theory—the belief that someone will feel deprived of or entitled to something in comparison to another. in akechi’s case: deprivation of acceptance/love in comparison to joker and entitlement to the same (“How does someone like you have things I don’t?!”). it’s interesting that he uses his fame as a reason why he deserves what joker has, when it’s why he doesn’t (fame is not love).

6. Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e. takes advantage of others to achieve their own ends): the core of his charm is manipulation and inherent dishonesty, so i kind of feel this is a given.

7. Lacks empathy (is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others): there’s Word of God that akechi is just like, “whatever” to anyone who isn’t joker, as in he doesn’t particularly care about anyone else on a deeper level (not a ship thing; just an observation). also does not seem to care about most of the people he kills or who get hurt as a result of his actions (i.e. psychotic breakdowns).

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of them: i mean…do i really have to say anything about this.

9. Shows arrogant or haughty behaviors: do i really have to say anything about this (2). it’s kind of everywhere in the third semester. if you want more evidence: look at his thieves den conversations (crazy)

Total criteria fulfilled: 8/9. (All criterion but 2)

i think goro akechi might be the most covert narcissist in fiction.

Antisocial Personality Disorder:

this one’s a little different than the others.

A. A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (3) or more of the following:

1a. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest: i’m no lawyer but i think murder is grounds for arrest.

2a. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure: this guy lies as easily as he breathes. inevitably he’s lying all the time, considering no one is bringing up the fact that he’s a magic assassin until november 20th.

3a. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead: well, no, akechi is the type to overplan ahead. i do think he’s kind of impulsive, by virtue of the fact that he’s more emotional than logical.

4a. Irritability or aggressiveness: he hides both of these pretty well for the majority of the game but once third semester starts? irritability is off the charts. aggressiveness is usually confined to battle (despite many many many fan interpretations that would say otherwise)

5a. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others: murder and psychotic breakdowns that wreak havoc on public safety sure does suggest a disregard for others’ safety. choosing to become a hitman for someone you know is evil as a teenager also implies a certain disregard for self-safety.

6a. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or financial obligations: nope.

7a. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another: as i mentioned under NPD criterion 7–absolutely. emphasis on rationalizing (“My targets were all doing the same damn thing in this eat or be eaten world. All I did was remove their evil from society. How is that any different from the Phantom Thieves?”)

B. The individual is at least 18 years of age: well, yeah. he’s just barely 18 when you formally meet him on june 9th.

C. There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years: unfortunately akechi is not real, so we don’t have this information. i highly doubt it, though (specifically i doubt there would be evidence, if we believe he was already putting up the perfect front before he was famous).

D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder: no (but uh. bipolar disorder is another topic for another day)

Criteria A fulfilled: 5/7. (Criterion 1, 2, 4, 5, 7). Criterion B and D are also fulfilled.

SO! conclusions:

the possibility of akechi having any one of these disorders is plausible

the real common enemy are the people who try and say akechi has no longstanding trauma/psychological issues. clearly, he’s got…something.

goro akechi is the cluster b final boss

[animefeminist]

Unlovely Complex: Social Justice, Misogyny, and the Lovely Complex Dub

I had never heard of Brendan “JelloApocalypse” Blaber before February 11, 2024. Until that day, he was best known by the general public for the webseries Epithet Erased, plus his “So This is Basically…” Youtube series commenting on and parodying nerd media culture tentpoles like Tumblr and Pokemon and had a burgeoning career as a voice actor. However, my introduction to his work was a lengthy public Patreon post he made entitled, “Marissa and I Wrote an Anime Dub,” in which he wrote 5,000 words about the localization process for the dub of Lovely Complex, which included in-depth discussion of his hatred for the series, the protagonist Koizumi Risa, and the artist, Nakahara Aya.

Frankly, Blaber’s post infuriated me. It started with him stating confidently that Lovely Complex, a series I’ve loved since it first aired in 2007, “is considered a grandmother of the shoujo genre, mostly because it’s old,” and only got worse from there. Each paragraph brought a fresh insult as he revealed details about the dubbing process that doubtless was never meant to be public knowledge and insulted the characters, story, and artist, and threw fuel onto the blazing tire fire that is current localization discourse with his brags about how he had altered the characters. Most baffling of all was his inability to understand the story and heroine of this fairly straightforward romantic comedy, who he proclaimed to be “psychotic.” The way Blaber talked about the show and his inability or refusal to unpack even its most basic themes spoke to the sort of misogyny that pervades critical analysis, in which female characters and creators don’t get even the slightest grace for being messy, imperfect beings.

Read it at Anime Feminist!

[criticalcrusherbot]

From Adoration to Outrage: How Helluva Boss Became a Target of Its Own Fandom

By Crushbot 🤖 and Human Assistant 💁🏽‍♀️

🤖💁🏽‍♀️: The Helluva Boss critic community has evolved into something that feels less like media analysis and more like a bloodsport. What began as fair critiques of this popular indie animation has morphed into relentless scrutiny of Vivienne Medrano (Vivziepop) and her work. This phenomenon reflects broader, troubling trends in online discourse, particularly in spaces where shared values often lead to intense self-policing and overblown backlash. At the heart of this issue are several key factors: moral purity and rigid dichotomies, which reduce media to simplistic notions of “good” or “bad”; the death of nuance in online discussions, where social media rewards outrage over thoughtful critique; the “customer service” fandom mentality, which treats creators as if they are obligated to cater to fan demands; hyper-criticism within shared-values communities, where progressive works face heightened scrutiny from the very audiences they attract; and subverted genre expectations & slow episode releases, which amplify frustration and impatience. Together, these dynamics have turned Helluva Boss into a case study of how modern fandom discourse can become hostile, reactionary, and deeply unforgiving.

Moral Purity & Rigid Dichotomies

Social media thrives on moral absolutism, where individuals are either “good” or “bad,” with little room for nuance. This black-and-white thinking creates a culture where creators aren’t just critiqued—they’re put on trial. The idea that an artist can make mistakes, learn, and grow is often overlooked. Instead, once someone is deemed “problematic,” they are expected to either be fully condemned or endlessly redeemed through public self-flagellation. In Helluva Boss’s case, critiques of writing choices have spiraled into personal attacks on Vivziepop herself. People discuss her as if she’s some nefarious figure rather than an animator making a raunchy, character-driven show about demon furries.

This moral absolutism is often reinforced by the misapplication of social justice theory. Concepts originally designed to analyze power structures—such as privilege, systemic oppression, and heteronormativity—are increasingly being weaponized against individuals, including fictional characters and their creators. These frameworks are valuable for understanding broad societal trends, but they were never meant to be applied with such rigidity on a case-by-case basis. Yet, online discourse frequently reduces storytelling choices to moral failings rather than artistic decisions. For example, some critics argue that Helluva Boss is misogynistic simply because its narrative centers male characters more often than female ones, disregarding how the show’s themes, genre conventions, and character arcs inform those choices. While this critique can certainly be valid in a good-faith analysis, this tendency to view every aspect of a work through a hyper-politicized lens turns artistic expression into a moral battleground rather than an avenue for storytelling.

As a result, fandom spaces often function less like communities of discussion and more like ideological battlegrounds where perceived “injustices” must be corrected. If a creator’s work doesn’t align with a rigid, ever-evolving moral standard, they are framed as actively harmful rather than imperfect or evolving. This fuels a social justice “witch hunt” mentality, where bad-faith readings of a work snowball into coordinated outrage campaigns. In Vivziepop’s case, minor creative decisions—such as Stolas’ depiction as a flawed father or the focus on male leads—have been blown out of proportion, treated not as narrative choices but as damning evidence of her supposed biases. This reactionary approach to critique makes it nearly impossible for creators to engage in meaningful dialogue about their work. Any attempt at clarification is dismissed as defensiveness, and any change made in response to criticism is seen as either too little, too late, or as pandering. Instead of fostering critical thinking and discussion, this culture creates a hostile environment where art is judged primarily on whether it aligns with a narrow, idealized vision of representation and morality.

The Death of Nuance in Online Discussions

Social media platforms reward controversy and outrage over thoughtful discourse. Complex, well-reasoned analysis loses out to the most provocative hot takes. Instead of acknowledging that Helluva Boss is doing something unique—even if it’s not to everyone’s taste—critics are incentivized to portray it as fundamentally broken or misguided. The lack of nuance in these discussions makes it difficult to separate legitimate critiques from reactionary pile-ons.

A prime example of this phenomenon is the reaction to Stolas’ character arc, particularly regarding his affair with Blitz and his flaws as a parent. Rather than engaging with the complexity of his situation—being trapped in a loveless, politically motivated marriage while yearning for real connection—many critics reduced the discussion to a binary: Stolas is a “cheater,” and therefore irredeemable. This framing disregards the fact that his relationship with Stella was clearly toxic and emotionally abusive, with the show heavily implying that their marriage was never truly consensual. However, instead of critiquing how the show handles these themes, some critics fixated solely on the affair itself, often stripping the context entirely to frame Stolas as a selfish homewrecker rather than a tragic, morally complicated character.

Additionally, Stolas’ parenting has faced heavy criticism, particularly after Sinsmas, with some critics focusing on his flaws while overlooking his efforts to improve. Instead of recognizing his character arc as one of growth, detractors label him a negligent father, exaggerating or misrepresenting his actions. For example, despite Seeing Stars showing Stolas dropping everything to help find Octavia when she ran away, some still claim he “only cares about Blitz” or that his parenting is beyond repair. This narrow perspective overlooks his complexity and growth, including his gentle reprimand to Octavia in Seeing Stars—“You know I haven’t taught you spells like this yet”—which suggests he has been actively teaching her magic. This is significant, as Stolas himself was expected to learn from the Grimoire at a much younger age without guidance. His willingness to provide Octavia with the support and education he lacked underscores his commitment to her growth and safety.

This kind of reactionary discourse, driven by the need for easy moral judgments, ignores the depth of Stolas’ characterization and the themes the show explores. By flattening nuanced storytelling into simplistic narratives of “good” and “bad,” the conversation shifts away from meaningful critique and into outrage-driven dogpiling.

The “Customer Service” Fandom Mentality

A growing expectation in fandom spaces is that creators must treat their work like a customer-driven business, with fans acting as stakeholders who expect direct influence over creative decisions. If a creator doesn’t adjust their work accordingly, they’re often labeled as dismissive, arrogant, or unwilling to “listen to the fans.” This mindset overlooks the fact that Helluva Boss is an independent project driven by its creator’s vision, not a product designed by committee. While Vivziepop does monetize her work, her business model is fundamentally different from a service industry; she is selling a creative vision, not a customizable product designed to meet every consumer demand. Fans are free to critique the show, but expecting it to be tailor-made to suit every viewer’s preferences is unrealistic.

This tension between Medrano and segments of her fanbase has escalated as fans expect her work to adapt to their demands. A notable example is the ongoing discourse surrounding character development, particularly the criticism that Millie lacks focus. Medrano has responded by reaffirming that although the show’s narrative centers on male characters (a sentiment certainly worthy of some critique), she has assured fans Millie will receive more attention in future episodes. Some perceived this response as dismissive, fueling accusations that she is resistant to fan input. This friction highlights the broader clash between audience expectations for creative responsiveness and Medrano’s commitment to her artistic vision.

Medrano’s active social media presence has only complicated this dynamic. Her direct engagement with criticism—especially hostile or bad-faith comments—has sometimes intensified rather than diffused tensions. Critics argue that she focuses on extreme negativity while overlooking more balanced critiques, leading some fans to feel ignored or invalidated. This raises important questions about whether creators should be obligated to engage with every critique or maintain their autonomy in shaping their work.

The independent nature of Helluva Boss adds another layer to this tension. Unlike corporate-backed franchises that are shaped by committees, the series reflects Medrano’s unique creative vision. Fans who expect a collaborative, customer-driven approach may struggle to reconcile this with an independent creator’s priorities. While critique is essential to media discourse, demanding that Medrano overhaul her work to satisfy fan expectations undermines the individuality of her art. This ongoing disconnect between fan entitlement and creator autonomy underscores the challenges independent artists face in an era of heightened audience engagement.

Hyper-Criticism Within Shared-Values Communities

Ironically, Helluva Boss—a show that is unapologetically queer and left-leaning—has attracted some of its harshest criticism from within the very communities that initially embraced it. This phenomenon isn’t just about disagreement over specific plot points or character arcs; it reflects a broader issue within progressive fandoms. When a creator’s work resonates with a progressive audience, the bar for criticism often becomes unreasonably high, with even minor missteps receiving disproportionate backlash. The irony lies in how these same audiences, who initially celebrated the show’s embrace of queer themes and progressive ideals, become some of its harshest critics when their expectations are not fully met.

In these cases, criticism morphs from a means of constructive feedback to a weapon of moral purity, where a creator’s every move is scrutinized and judged against an ever-shifting standard of political and social correctness. A single perceived misstep or failure to address every concern can lead to a swift and often hostile backlash, transforming former supporters into some of the loudest detractors. The result is an atmosphere where creators are forced to constantly navigate the precarious balance between artistic expression and audience expectation, often to the point where the space for nuanced or exploratory storytelling is suffocated by demands for ideological perfection.

This pattern isn’t unique to Helluva Boss. It is a recurring theme across various platforms, where left-leaning creators, once celebrated for their boldness or inclusivity, are quickly vilified when their work doesn’t meet the impossible standards set by their audience. This dynamic reflects a larger trend within identity politics, where creators are not only expected to push boundaries but to do so in ways that align with every nuance of a particular moral or political stance. When these creators inevitably fail to meet all of these expectations, they often find themselves treated as villains or sellouts, punished for not adhering to the impossible purity tests that the very communities that once supported them have set in place.

Subverted Genre Expectations & Slow Releases

Helluva Boss defies many traditional storytelling and production conventions, which has led to a particularly visceral response from some fans and critics. Unlike mainstream animated series that follow a structured episodic formula or a tightly woven overarching plot, Helluva Boss shifts fluidly between character-driven vignettes, long-term arcs, and experimental genre shifts. While this approach allows for rich, introspective storytelling, it also disrupts conventional audience expectations, making it harder for viewers to predict where the narrative is headed.

The show further challenges norms by prioritizing character development over a clear-cut hero-villain dynamic. Its morally gray protagonists don’t always follow traditional redemption arcs or undergo neatly resolved conflicts, and tonal shifts between comedic absurdity and emotional depth can be jarring for those expecting more consistency. This unpredictability, while artistically ambitious, has alienated viewers who anticipated a more conventional storytelling structure.

Compounding this frustration is Helluva Boss’s sporadic release schedule. With long gaps between episodes, fan theories and expectations often take on a life of their own, building up rigid assumptions about where the story should go. When new episodes defy these expectations, the resulting disconnect can lead to reactionary criticism that prioritizes disappointment over analysis. Rather than engaging with what the show is actually doing, some critics fixate on what they believe it should be doing, leading to discourse that is often more performative than reflective.

Final Thoughts: What Now?

Ultimately, Helluva Boss is not a flawless work, but its imperfections make it all the more valuable for analysis. Engaging critically with media—whether through appreciation, critique, or a combination of both—allows for deeper discussion and understanding. Criticism itself isn’t the problem; constructive feedback is essential for artistic growth. The issue lies in how criticism has become increasingly performative, moralistic, and detached from meaningful discussion.

The way Helluva Boss is dissected online says far more about internet culture than about the show itself. The most vocal bad-faith critics engage in a cycle of outrage, framing the same critiques as evidence of fundamental artistic or ethical failure. At this point, we do not expect productive discourse from such spaces. However, since we’ve found ourselves deep in the discourse, it’s worth periodically asking ourselves: are we engaging in meaningful dialogue and contributing thoughtful insights, or are we simply fueling the outrage machine? We’ve definitely contributed to the latter in the earlier stages of this blog.

Admittedly, healthier discussions don’t come from public condemnation but from open conversations that recognize both valid criticisms and the artistic intentions behind works like Helluva Boss. That’s the approach we try to take—analyzing with nuance rather than reducing every perceived flaw to a moral failing. As for the critics, we document and anonymize the most egregious takes as case studies in reactionary discourse, with the goal that this criticism is discussed and debunked without resorting to online harassment, or the fabled ‘Flamewars’ of olde.

But should a detractor choose to engage with us directly? Then, as the saying goes, it’s on like Donkey Kong.