#some of you are being very lovely and considerate about different opinions but the reactionary posts ive seen today are making my head spin

[biblicalhorror]

My dash has been extremely divided today re: taylor swift/swiftie criticism and honestly my take on it is that as long as you don't believe she is an untouchable oracle who would never lie or exaggerate any story about her life and is always the victim in every situation OR that she is an evil nuisance to society for continuing to make and put out her art at a time when her boyfriend is also massively successful then we should all pretty much be on the same side here

[sanstropfremir]

pls do talk more about b*s and their current image (censoring because if you don’t have great things to say i don’t want you to be attacked by their crazy stans :))

i always bring this up when i talk about them but it’s really :( that they are the way they are now. like i was a fan because of their hyyh era and their songs about the troubled youth. and of course they can’t stay in that image forever (because we all grow up and it would just be v fake if they tried to continue it given their status and wealth now.) it’s just disappointing that they went down the ‘safe, disney image’ and are releasing generic mainstream pop songs people will forget after a couple listens. i’m no longer a fan of them now but yuh.

also not to mention how they essentially made kpop boring for me now lol i wish companies had fun with their music selections instead of aiming for whatever b*s has. like we will never get a group like orange caramel again (i know wjsn chocome’s concept was similar but it just didn’t feel the same. you talked about it before and i wholeheartedly agree with ur points.)

thank you for the consideration of censoring the name but honestly i'm not that worried about it. i do however find the increasingly creative ways people censor it to be extremely hilarious so keep it up if you would like.

i addressed most of the first part of your ask in the second part of my response here, this is now the third installment in a series, somehow. (the first part is here).

not to level this at you in specific anon, because i know a lot of people share this sentiment of kpop being 'boring' now, and while there is an element of this that is influenced by bts, and although it is true we aren't getting the same level of wild that produced orange caramel, there is actually interesting and kinda weird stuff happening in kpop; it's just not by the groups that are getting the most attention. dreamcatcher has been out here doing horror rock since their debut in 2017. onf has put out two excellent summer pop tracks with fun and stupid genre mvs. i love this recent ghost9 track. i'm obsessed with the instrumental in the chorus of bdc's moon walker. just b debuted last month with a strange bang yongguk track and a very 2013 feeling mv. here's another weird and fun boy group debut, blitzers. a.c.e have put out favourite boys, the fave boyz remix, down, and higher as their last four releases which all have the most coherent and well designed concepts in the last year. and while i'm at it i might as well include take me higher and undercover. oneus put out a mad max themed performance video randomly for no reason like three weeks ago. the rest of the industry were cowards for not following up on to be or not to be with a shakespeare comeback wave. rip onlyoneof but they gave us a whole three week comeback of dick grabs. hanya brought my attention to this weird as shit debut track from a group that has now totally disappeared. knk's sunset exists. we moved on way too fast from the mv because taeyang was being cunty on music shows but sf9's teardrop has probably some of the most interesting shots in a kpop mv in the last several years. and we definitely moved on too fast from my favourite just some guy and goofy movie character woodz's feel like.

i think it's pretty fatalistic to view bts as having singlehandedly made the industry boring because honestly......i don't think they have. if you want to talk about the downturn to plainclothes styling....well that's shinee's fault. and the general trend to less dramatic fashion and visual tastes is not exclusive to the kpop industry, it's been a whole cultural trend. the mid to late 2010s were the rise of 'normcore' and we haven't burst the bubble yet. bts is just reflecting trends happening in the wider world, and in particular the western one. for the most viewed kpop mv of 2020 dynamite did....what exactly? it didn't really spawn any significant copycats in terms of sound or aesthetics, with the exception of maybe superm's we do if you look at it a bit sideways. although this is one of bts' better styled mvs, 70s retro did not make any resurgence in kpop styling, EXCEPT in magazine and fashion shoots, which it was already doing in the west. taemin's criminal was significantly more influential; i can think of at least three different male soloist mvs that borrowed heavily from it. honestly i think stylists and groups are trying to steer as clear as possible of whatever aesthetics bts uses, lest they accidentally doom themselves to a (perceived) slighted fanbase. plus, there's been a pretty sizable resurgence in contemporary hanbok styling, so even though there is a lot more outward attention going to things like international promotions for other groups and whatever the hell sm keeps trying to do with nct, i think a fair amount of companies are interested in maintaining the koreanness of kpop while facilitating broader global access.

and honestly, bigger acts have also put out interesting things in the last year. we did all see taemin's back to back release roster for ngda right? criminal? idea???? advice???????? fuck, chocolate was barely a year ago. whatever your opinions on yunho are, thank u is fucking brilliant mv. sunmi's tail. lie to me and tell me the mv for you can't sit with us isn't fun as fuck. i dunno what the hell the new nct127 song is gonna be like but the teaser photos and mood sampler are weird as hell and i'm absolutely interested. he's only kpop adjacent at the moment but jackson's 100 ways and lmly are really sharply produced low budget mvs with clean and interesting visuals. maniac shot to the top of my most listened immediately after it dropped because lia kim AND those slick horns in the instrumental???? ten's paint me naked was not at all what i was expecting but it's still fun as hell and has a pretty unique aesthetic.

the tldr of this whole three parter is this: bts has always been reactionary to wider cultural trends and that's been how they've made it this far. yes their influence on the industry looms very large because of the predominence of them on the scene, but it's mostly in the perception of kpop rather than in the artistry of it.

i don't think any company is going to be able to achieve what bts and hybe have, which i think is fine. they're the scale tipped too far. hopefully by now most companies have probably noticed that they don't need to cater to the western market so hard, and that it's probably not a good idea to offer their artists up on the racist chopping block of the western pop scene. you can market to an international fanbase without trying to gun for a grammy or for billboard or whatever. creating interesting art should be at the fore, not numbers goals. but we're just gonna have to wait and see what happens in the next year or so.

[unless-we-choose-to-reverse-it]

Re: Contrapoints.

So Natalie Wynn, AKA Contrapoints, recently deleted her Twitter. And I’m going to state, up front, that if you are celebrating this fact, you are the problem. Inb4 y’all cancel my ass about this.

And to give the TL;DR up front: this is a post about what “cancel culture” actually looks like. Actual violent abusers being named and shamed is not cancel culture. Sex pests and people who are genuinely fucking hateful being accurately described as such? Not cancel culture. That’s a thing called “I don’t want to associate with these bastards, and I want other people to know that they are bastards.”

But let’s talk about what actual cancel culture looks like. I’m going to put the rest of this under a “read more” so that I don’t put an entire goddamn essay on everyone’s feed.

For those who do not know, Natalie Wynn operates the YouTube channel Contrapoints, focused on discussing leftist politics with a particular focus on gender and sex. Natalie, being a trans woman, has a level of insider knowledge that a lot of performatively woke people online lack, and her work, true to her nom de plume, often deals with the fact that these are complicated issues.

She has a considerable following, and a good deal of her following consists of men who she has essentially saved from becoming alt-right shitlords. Her production values, knack for performance, and willingness to recognize complex issues when she sees them has a certain power with people who are not already involved in leftist circles, and while many of her takes are fairly pedestrian by the standards of people DEEP into left-leaning circles, she is one of the avenues for bringing people into leftist politics from outside. Go onto any one of her most popular videos, and you’ll see the comments filled with people talking about how Natalie made them change their minds. It’s a beautiful kind of thing.

Now, am I loading the conversation a bit because I am a fan of Contrapoints? Yes. Yes I am. Because I believe that her work is valuable to modern leftism. She is a propagandist, and what’s more, she’s a brilliant propagandist. Where so many people attempt to bring people into leftism through shame, she entertains and entices, and presents a force that reactionary shitbags seem incapable of attacking.

But where reactionaries find themselves wanting, the Puritans have plenty of ammo to destroy progressive spaces from within.

Fast forward to a few days ago. Natalie Wynn posts a tweet talking about asking for pronouns. Now, because she deleted her Twitter and I don’t have the tweet in front of me, I cannot quote it verbatim, but to paraphrase, she said that asking for people’s pronouns isn’t always the best idea, since it can make binary trans people feel like they’re being isolated and viewed as “less than” their gender.

Okay, have we read that? Good. Let’s consider that for a second.

This is a genuinely good point to make, and it mostly arose from her own feelings of discomfort re: being a trans woman and finding trans-inclusive spaces uncomfortable on that account. Perhaps the point was not elegantly made, but still.

Non-binary trans folk, binary trans folk who can “pass,” and binary trans folk who cannot; they all have different needs. For some people, asking about pronouns is an affirming thing, something which allows them to articulate themselves fully and prevents them from dealing with people misgendering them. For others, especially those who are interested in a more classically gendered expression, asking about pronouns can feel like misgendering, can feel like people regard you as less than your actual self.

This is a discussion that needs to be had. How can the community balance different needs from very closely linked groups of people? How can we reconcile the needs of people who are openly defiant of gender norms and who want their opposition to that recognized, with the needs of people who are more comfortable with traditionally gendered expression and who want to be recognized as such?

It’s a conversation that needs to be had. Unfortunately, subtlety is dead on Twitter dot com. And on social media in general.

When I talk about “Puritans,” I refer to a specific subset of Extremely Online progressives. Just as the IRL Puritans seemed to disdain any kind of Christian teachings of love, community, and acceptance in favour of control, guilt, and hating thy neighbour, the “Puritans” seem to derive their politics solely from a sense of guilt and control, and relish in attacking those who are not Woker Than Thou.

The average Online Puritan is far more concerned with cancelling other progressives than they are with opposing evil in this world. Opposing reactionaries? Nah, that might actually do something. Let’s just attack other progressives, and then wonder why people don’t seem eager to support our causes. Opposing people who are actually making the lives of LGBT people worse in tangible ways? Pfft, that would take work. Hey, let’s nitpick every form of art that displays anything remotely shitty, because clearly, depicting shitty things in art or consuming art with dark themes means that you actually want to do those things in the real world. Hey, let’s all dogpile this queer creator who is trying to convert alt-right shitlords to the good side of history! Surely, that’ll advance our cause!

Hell, I think there’s something to that comparison, because at the heart of both groups is the idea of the Elect and the Reprobates. An unfortunate aspect of modern western culture is that we tend to believe that people are good or evil at heart. This is a really dumb idea. Good and evil are not things that we are; they’re things that we do. We perform good acts and evil acts upon this world, and when I say “we,” I mean all of us. Sometimes, I see people who otherwise do really good things for the world do something really stupid. Sometimes, otherwise monstrous people do good stuff.

But if we believe that some are Elect and others are Reprobates, then that paradigm is impossible. The Elect cannot sin, and since it is a sin to not believe yourself one of the Elect, then you must enforce this law upon all others. If they sin, they are a Reprobate. Alternatively, you must work hard to explain why what they just did wasn’t actually a sin, so they’re still good, actually!

This, right here, is cancel culture. It isn’t accurately calling out people who have done legitimately evil things. It isn’t attempting to get predatory people out of the community. It’s this dichotomy between the Elect and the Reprobates, and the need to constantly enforce that We Are The Elect and that All Who Do Not Match Up Are Reprobates. No willingness to admit the recovering shitheads who might not fully grasp the issue without some help. No consideration that people who do minor stupid things might just need gentle correction to set them on the righteous path. Nope, none of that. Any sin makes you a Reprobate, and Reprobates Must Be Purged.

I should stop beating around the bush. The Online Puritans descended, because apparently, “we should consider how this makes people feel” means, “asking for a person’s pronouns is personally attacking me.” In other words, Natalie was now a Reprobate.

What followed was Natalie clarifying her point and even attempting to throw her critics a bone, suggesting that she wasn’t as considerate as she needed to be about the ways that non-binary people would interpret her words. The response was unchanging. Other leftists came to her defense, but they were, of course, Cancelled as well, as I am sure to be the second that people discover this post. Eventually, Natalie deleted her Twitter, and the Online Puritans rejoiced at another Reprobate driven off of Twitter like it was any real victory. 

Now, this is not the death of Contrapoints. She still has her channel, and a shitload of people who will continue to watch her content, like me. But a woman who, in my personal opinion, is a force for good in this shithole we call the internet, was essentially driven off of a social media platform because the Puritans decided that she was a Reprobate.

And to anyone who wants to declare me a Reprobate for making this post: go the fuck ahead. I am not perfect, and I am certainly not one of the Elect; hell, I’m no Calvinist, so I don’t even regard those as valid categories. And furthermore: you, the Elect, are as great a danger to progressive spaces as the reactionaries, because you force us to fight on two fronts. You force us to oppose each other, as opposed to standing together for the betterment of the world. And for fucks sake, is it too much to ask that the people who are getting fucked over the most by the current order should stand together in opposition to it?

So fuck it. I stand with Contrapoints. Puritans are cancelled.

[wisdomrays]

Essentials for Fruitful Criticism

QUESTION: What do we need to be careful about while making constructive criticism, which is an important means of seeking the better at everything, so that it will be effective and fruitful? What are the essential points to be observed both by those who make and receive criticism?

ANSWER: Criticism means criticizing a statement or behavior, revealing its negative and positive sides, and making a comparison between what is and what should be; it is one of the important scholarly essentials that facilitates progress toward the ideal. In this respect, it has been employed since the early generations of Muslims. For example, in the methodology of Hadith, a given report would be evaluated with a critical approach in terms of its text and the reliability of its chain of narrators. Indeed, criticism took its place in the methodology of Islamic disciplines from the beginning, in order to unearth the truth at issues such as finding the right meaning to be derived from Divine commandments and interpreting them correctly. This scholarly discipline of criticism served as a sound filter against alien elements incompatible with Islam. As the discipline of munazara (comparing and discussing ideas) also developed, the new interpretations that emerged as a consequence of fruitful discussions were also put to criticism, tested with established criteria, and sparkles of truth were attained in the end.

Particularly at questioning the reliability of the chain of narrators in the field of Hadith, there was a serious accumulation of literature. Numerous volumes of work sought to help authenticate whether statements reported as Hadith genuinely belonged to the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him. But even while making judgment and evaluation at such an important issue, scholars showed the utmost sensitivity at refraining from excessive remarks. For example, Shu'ba ibn Hajjaj, one of the important Hadith scholars of the classic period who systemized the subject of criticism (naqd) for the first time, once used an interesting term while referring to the critical evaluation of narrators. Addressing a fellow scholar, he said, "Come, let us make some backbiting on the path of God," drawing attention to both the necessity of doing this vital task and that it must solely be done for the sake of God.

The method of criticism was successfully employed particularly during the first five centuries of the Islamic calendar in the fields of both religious and positive sciences, for the sake of reaching the most appropriate. Therefore, this scholarly method can be employed in our time as well, given that fairness, respect, and mindfulness are maintained. At this point, let's refer to the manners and method of criticism briefly.

Adopting a Fair Attitude and Soft Style

The issue criticized must be presented in a very sound style and utmost care must be shown at using a polite manner of speaking. That is, the criticism is not meant to evoke a negative response, but to be easily welcomed. When you present your alternative thoughts and plausible approaches for solving certain matters, you will be shown respect if you do it in agreeable politeness. For example, suppose that you are stating your opinion on a certain subject and the person you are addressing thinks the opposite. If you say, "This is what I knew about the matter, but I see that it has a different side as well," that person will likely come to you after a while and confess that your opinion had been more appropriate. And this time, you will respond by thanking that person for being so fair. In this respect, one should know how to—to some degree—dismiss one's ego, experience, and knowledge for the sake of upholding righteousness. In other words, if you expect the reasonable to be met reasonably, you should even evaluate others' not-that-reasonable thoughts within their own reasonability, adopt a welcoming attitude toward them, and form an atmosphere of sincerity where people can be welcoming toward truths.

Making General Statements without Targeting the Person

History has witnessed that, in whatever field, those who do not show respect to others' thoughts and who continuously dismiss others as worthless, ruin so many worthy things without even noticing it. For this reason, whatever is the nature of the element before us, we should adopt the principle of treating them all with a certain degree of respect. This is a very appropriate means of making people before us accept the truths that we present. Otherwise, no matter how great the projects that we offer, statements slammed on others' heads will not be welcomed. When criticism is not expressed politely, it will inevitably be received negatively, even if the matter that we criticize is an obvious mistake of someone that conflicts with the decisive and established teachings of religion. For example, you might witness that your friend has gazed at a forbidden sight. If you jerk into telling his embarrassing mistake to his face in a direct way and reproach him, he may respond by trying to justify some devilish considerations—God forbid! In particular, if the individual in front of you is not ready for a criticism of his attitudes and behaviors, then every criticism of yours will evoke reactionary behavior and disrespect against truths, or even make that person hostile against his own values. Even if such people understand what they hear is true, they will do their best to devise new arguments to get the better of the person before them, owing to the trauma of receiving that criticism like a mighty blow on their head; they will be continuously imagining the best way to answer the criticisms directed toward them, even when they retire to their bed at night.

Thus, matters need to be told indirectly, without taking individual persons as targets.Indeed, when the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, witnessed a person's wrong, he did not directly criticize that person. Instead, he gathered people together and spoke about that act in general, which allowed the doer to hear the lesson. On one occasion, for example, a man who had been commissioned to collect taxes said, "This amount is the tax I have collected and these were given to me as presents." Upon hearing this, the Prophet addressed his followers from the pulpit and made a general statement about when he commissions a person to carry out a certain commandment of God and that person states that a part of what he collected belongs to the state and the rest is a present to him. To show how mistaken this idea was, the Prophet asked whether those gifts would have been presented had he sat in his parents' home.

The issue of who makes the criticism is also very important. If something needs to be told to someone, one should not be too eager to do that personally, but rather leave the issue to another person whom the one to receive criticism loves very much. In such a situation, even criticism from a beloved friend will be taken as a compliment. If it seems likely that a criticism you need to make will receive a reactionary response, you should leave it to someone else because what really matters is not who voices the truth but whether the truth meets with a heartfelt acceptance.

At this point it is useful to relate a relevant parable of the two grandsons of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him. Although this parable about Hasan and Husayn does not take place in the reliable sources of Hadith, it conveys important lessons.

Accordingly, the two boys came to make ablutions somewhere and they saw a man who splashed water all around but did not wash his limbs properly as required for a valid ablution. These two young talents of keen insight sought a way to show him the way without humiliating him. With this intention, they asked the man to tell them which one of them made ablutions correctly. They made ablutions exactly as they had learned from their blessed father Ali ibn Abi Talib, may God be pleased with him. When they were done, they asked which one of them did it better. With the ease of being free from humiliation, the man calmly replied that they both did it so well and that his own way was wrong. Therefore, it is important to reiterate that the style we use at correcting wrongs bears great importance in terms of acceptance.

Educating Individuals to Accept Criticism

Additionally, making people able to accept criticism and evoking a righteous feeling of respect in them constitute a separate dimension of the issue. The Companions, who had attained an ideal level of righteousness, could comfortably warn one another about any wrong that they had committed without causing any negative reaction at all. For example, during a sermon, Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, reminded people that it was necessary to keep bridal dues (mahr) within affordable limits and told them not to ask for too high amounts. What he suggested was a reasonable solution to prevent possible abuses. Even today, an understanding attitude of this issue will definitely fulfill an important function at solving a social problem. While Umar was drawing attention to this fact, an old woman spoke up and asked the caliph, "O Umar, is there a Qur'anic verse or hadith on this issue that you know and we do not? The Qur'an commands, 'But if you still decide to dispense with a wife and marry another, and you have given the former (even so much as amounts to) a treasure, do not take back anything thereof' (an-Nisa 4:20), thus not setting a limit to the amount of bridal dues." In spite of being the caliph governing a great state that challenged the two superpowers of the time, Umar said aloud to himself, "O Umar, you do not know your religion even as much as an old woman." This degree of righteousness caused Umar to be referred as "al-waqqaf inda'l haqq" (one who halts when he meets the truth). That is, when he faces a righteous argument, he stops like a car that suddenly comes to a halt while moving downslope. It is necessary to effect this feeling in people. For this reason, we should make a deal with a certain friend and authorize him or her to comfortably criticize any wrong that arises in our personal attitudes and behaviors.

In conclusion, a person who intends to criticize, or rather to correct certain matters, must first understand the issue well and make a serious effort in terms of making the correct remark. Secondly, the other person's feelings must be taken into consideration and fathom whether that other person is ready to welcome what we are about to say. If a negative reaction seems likely, one should not think, "I definitely want to be the one who expresses this truth," but instead leave the criticism to another person whose remarks will be more influential. Considering the circumstances of our time, when arrogance has become so prevailing and people cannot tolerate even a little criticism, these principles have gained a greater importance. As for those who receive criticism, they should uphold righteousness above everything else and respond to criticisms with gratitude instead of reacting negatively.

[millicentthecat]

Why The Last Jedi is a Reactionary Propaganda Film

I've been waiting for my thoughts to coalesce (and for the "spoiler" window to pass) to make a unifying analysis of Star Wars: The Last Jedi.  This is not a position piece on whether you should or should not enjoy the movie.  It is not any kind of call to action.  It is only an analysis on how The Last Jedi works as a propaganda film.  It’s my personal interpretation based on my experience with assembling message.  This post is tagged "tlj critical" and "discourse" in hopes that will assist people in finding or blocking the content they wish to read.

To begin:   

As important as diversity in representation is, so too is balanced programming of message.  Programming message involves building value by presenting the very ideologies and mechanisms which sustain paradigms of injustice.  Will these be established as inescapable, natural, desirable, or effective?  The Last Jedi (TLJ henceforth) promotes integration with these ideologies and mechanisms.  It does not promote Resistance.

There are three central messages repeating in TLJ.  They are:

1. Respect and trust authority figures and institutional hierarchy

2. Girls like guys who Join (the military)

3. It is the work/role of women to be caretakers and educators (for men)

1. Respect and trust authority figures and institutional hierarchy

After The Force Awakens, my understanding of Poe Dameron's character was that he was designed as a classic rogue-individualist pilot--a hotheaded "flyboy," as it were.  This was not the fanon interpretation, which is understandable; The Force Awakens gave us a lot of poetic material to take in different directions.  I felt my interpretation was valid as it was supported by the visual dictionary (which calls Poe a rogue, I believe) and a line in The Force Awakens novelization about how some people are inherently more important than others.

In short, Poe Dameron was an individual who trusted his own instincts more than others and didn't believe in always playing nice.  In TLJ, this manifests in his relationship with a new character: Vice Admiral Holdo.  Now one of the only things we know FOR SURE about Poe Dameron is that he has no problem taking orders from women, respecting a female General, and trusting her experience.  This is demonstrated by his relationship to Leia, who he knows.  Holdo is a stranger who Poe has never met.  She is not just a woman, but an unknown woman.  EVEN SO, Poe is willing to trust her (at first) by sharing his assessment of the situation--essentially, submitting what he knows for her consideration, sharing his thoughts.  She responds to this by withholding information, reminding him of his recent demotion, and calling him names.  She responded to his  gesture of openness and respect with domination and authority.

This is well within her right, as established by both in-universe and our-universe rules of institutional hierarchy.  Poe, however, does not blindly trust authority figures OR institutional hierarchy more than his own instincts.  It's actually pretty unusual for a protagonist in this universe to do that, for reasons.

Later, General Leia reveals to both Poe and the audience that Holdo had information she was not willing to share.  She is strongly moralized as having been "right" about her plan: Poe takes his reprimand from Leia like a boy accepting a scolding.  Holdo is martyred and established as an example of strong leadership.  Her decision to withhold information from her subordinate is never highlighted (by a narrative authority or third party, such as Leia) as a mistake.  In our society, the rules of hierarchy dictate that "superiors" do not have to share what they have with "inferiors" or treat them with respect.  Those with more power are not beholden to those with less.  Poe is reprimanded for challenging that.

I was almost willing to overlook this deliberately moralized messaging as a botched attempt at a feminist moment before encountering the reviews about TLJ.  In general, there are a large number of reviews for this film which insinuate that most of the people who dislike this film are white male bigots, threatened by the presence of women. (a, b , c , d , e , f , g , h) .  This is not my experience.  The other thing many reviews point to is how Feminist this film is (as a selling point.)  It is an eerily unanimous opinion in mainstream, corporate media that Poe mistrusted Holdo because of her femininity--not her behaviors.  On social media where unpaid people are speaking, many young women are challenging this.  The shouting-down of women's opinions by accusing us of misogyny is a separate topic, but I did want to call attention to the discrepancy between the corporate media response and the social media response.  To me this is evidence of a deliberate misdirection.

Another story arc which enforces the position that we should trust authority figures and institutional hierarchy is in the reestablishment of the Jedi Order, via Luke, Yoda's Force Ghost, and, more significantly, Rey.  Now, much has been written (on this blog, and in many more prestigious place and by better known writers.  See Tom Carson's "Jedi Uber Alles," for instance) in the way of criticism of the Jedi.  The child abducting, the mind control, the over-extension of executive powers, the militarized cult status, the extermination of the Sith race, the monopolization of the Force; their crimes go on and on.  Moreover these are not just mistakes the Jedi made--crimes secondary to their nature--but rather these are the very nature of what their institution stood for.  The Jedi are not "the Light."  They are a specific religion with specific, inherently problematic practices and ideologies.

The Last Jedi is literally a movie about how it's ok that there are going to be more Jedi.

Luke's not on board with that, at first.  Master Yoda (from beyond the grave) reasserts the divine right of the Jedi to rule, as badly and indefinitely as they like.  Because even their failure is valuable.  Try try again, one supposes.  Whatever happened to, "there is no try?"  Oh yes, I remember.  The laws of the privileged do not apply to them.  

Last but not least, the character most overtly challenge institutional hierarchy in TLJ is Kylo Ren, when he kills Supreme Leader Snoke.  This move is not specifically negatively moralized (unless you read Kylo as the villain, which I prefer to) but it also very clearly does not result in a positive or progressive change for Kylo.  At the end of the film, he is miserable; his coup changed nothing.

2. Girls like guys who Join (the military)

"It's all a machine, brother," slurs an alcoholic loner-character known as "Don't Join," sometime after dropping the news on us that Good Guys and Bad Guys buy their weapons from the same arms dealer.  His general sense of hopelessness rubs off on Finn, who grows in his story arc from being willing to Unjoin, himself (as a deserter) to throwing himself into a suicide run for the Resistance.  What stops Finn from a kamikaze end is Rose: she saves him.  For the young viewer who agrees with DJ and sees machinery in war and capitalism, this suicide run represents the realistic (and popular trope) outcome of "joining."  War leads to death.  Capitalism leads to death.  Our generation knows this and we ask, as many before have asked, "why should I be a hero?  I'll just end up dead!"

The Last Jedi does what every great work of propaganda targeting young men does.  It gives a reason.  Why be a hero?  Because girls, that's why.

Before this pact is made, however, there needs to be a little softening-of-the-way--a little grooming.  The word "hero" has been deconstructed in the language enough that people know to associate it with self sacrifice.  We are wary of heros.  The Last Jedi substitutes the word "leader" to mean what hero once meant: a person in power whose sacrifices are gratified with moral rightness in the narrative.  This subverts any counter-programming people were able to apply towards "heroic" stories.  Leadership is presented as an inherently positive and desirable quality, linked to selflessness, sacrifice, martyrdom, and rewarded with female attention.

This same re-programming wordplay is employed in Rose Tico's call to action: "not fighting what we hate.  Saving what we love!"  Question: if the behaviors and outcome are the same, does the mental engineering matter?  Is a Rose by any other name still a Rose?

Is war still war if you call it love?

At this point I also want to call attention to the fact that there is AGAIN very little opportunity in this film where to SEE the First Order committing atrocities: abducting kids, repressing a labor uprising, etc etc.  The First Order is never called fascist (nor, if I recall, are they referred to as an actual nation.)  Their politics aren't even alluded to.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that the film implies it doesn't matter which side you join, but I think there's definitely an argument that being involves with one side or the other is lauded more highly than staying neutral.

Worth mentioning: "Girls like guys who Join" is also the message of Luke's story arc.  Both Rey and Leia wanted Luke to rejoin the arena.  Rey even expresses a willingness to get closer to Kylo--while he is acting like a Joiner.  The minute he makes it clear that he wants no part in either side of the conflict (No Jedi, No Sith, no ties to the past, etc) Rey's trust is broken.  She leaves.  Her rejection IMMEDIATELY follows his insistence on leaving tribal war in the past.  It does not correspond with any immediacy to his acts of violence, nor to his stubborn declaration that she "will be the one to turn."

A brief note.  Army enrollment messaging is a necessary and functional part of maintaining an imperial state.  The in-text discourse positions an offensive/insurgent military organization against a defensive military organization, during combat.  "Join up" is therefore an aggressively interventionist and arguably imperialist position.

3. It is the work/role of women to be caretakers and educators (for men)

This is one of the oldest motifs in storytelling, so when I say it's conservative I mean really, really conservative.  Traditional gender roles and traditional family values are just that: extremely traditional.  Many people find comfort in them and are extremely threatened by their breakdown.  For this reason, storytellers are authorized to hand-wave or sexualize an inordinate amount of violence toward women in order to keep paradigms of labor as gendered as possible.

First of all, there are literal feminine-coded creatures on the island of Ahch-to called "caretakers."  These aliens watch over the island and look after the hutts where Luke Skywalker has taken up residence.

Second of all, Holdo's arc with Poe and Rose's arc with Finn are full of nods to the idea that women must teach and lead men.  Men (who are inherently dogs, apparently) will speak over us, desert us, aim guns at us, and otherwise challenge us, and it is our duty to keep them in line.  This is to be expected.  Flyboys will be flyboys.

Third, it is Rey's sacred duty to prepare Luke to return to the arena of battle.  When Luke fails to step into that role, she turns to Kylo Ren.  Rey and Leia both possess Force-related powers.  Both spend most of their time directing these powers to trying to save, protect, or heal male warriors around them.  When they do fight, rather than act themselves as subjects, they punish men who objectify them inappropriately as a corrective measure.

To be fair, Admiral Holdo and Paige Tico both act directly against the enemy.  They also both have close mentor relationships with other women.  However, Paige and Holdo both die in the course of the film.

A final personal note: in my opinion, there are many ways socially problematic and coercive content offers comfort to a population where uncomfortable traditions feel like the only option.  However, this way of life is not the only option, and this media is not comforting to everyone.

[aleatoryalarmalligator]

Life Story Part 61

I remember the first days I left school as a sort of blur, but at the same time – had a clarity to them. I no longer was burdened with the aching feeling that I had to be anywhere, or that I was failing some class, or I had to worry about someone seeing me in a negative light. I was free now. In a way at least. I wasn't the ball of fire I had promised myself it would be. That I found out pretty quickly. I didn't ambitiously start the rock band or get famous. But I slept when I wanted to – and was finally able to get enough sleep (I had been averaging four hours a night on school days for the last six years), and I got up when I wanted to. There was an ease off my shoulders. I felt like I was experiencing things for the first time.

It was raining for days on end I remember. And despite the alleviated feeling, I also felt this tremendous sadness. Perhaps I would not have been so sad had my leaving school had happened under my own terms. Because as it was, I did honestly feel forgotten about. I would look out the window sometimes and see my classmates, books still in hand. And I knew they all had some kind of future lined out. They were going to college, or getting married or taking on the family business. They had some kind of support. I was some kind of forgotten person hiding away in my father's old home, looking down from the second story onto the street. I felt a bit like Quasi Moto alienated and separate from the rest. Sarah left a day or two later for Texas, and she would not be moving back for three very long years. It was a sad goodbye – but oddly mundane. There is no way to truly know how to say goodbye to someone. So we said it much like one of us were going to be gone for only a week. It was probably the only way we knew how to communicate. Neither of us would know what would be coming next.

My notion of time changed considerably. In a way it was good. School had indeed stifled my creativity, pickled me in self doubt and incessant anxiety that spun me in circles. As soon as I left school for instance, my complexion cleared up entirely. I would never know myself in that environment – for when I was in school a great many of my thoughts were reactionary and based on panic and self loathing. Stepping out of it, and knowing that I would never be going back changed the way I saw what living was meant to be, and my place in it – or not in it so to speak. I would sometimes just sit quietly and listen to the sound of cars, of things dripping around me, to my own heartbeat. Somewhere along the lines between age five and seventeen, I had lost something subtle but all encompassing. I had lost the ability to really appreciate minute details. And I no longer saw myself as the center of the universe.

The depression I felt caused me to sleep a lot. I spent a lot of time sitting on the floor, wrapped in blankets, sleeping, eating and reading. I remember I would listen to Beck's Sea Change, sometimes skipping to 'Lost Cause'. Or I would listen to Mark Lanegan's The Winding Sheet. Before Alex left, I had listened to John Lennon's 'Plastic Ono Band', and I had instantly loved that album, so I scraped the money together to buy it. Working Class Hero was now my favorite song. That or God, or Love. That album defined a lot of what I felt and thought about. I just laid there on the floor coming to terms with this new reality for myself. There was nowhere for me to be, nobody who wanted to see me, and no where for me to go. I lived inside my own mind. And what was I? I took walks at night on occasion. I didn't really want people in town to see me. Everything in town was totally closed by six or seven at night. Allison and David would come  home from school to tell me about their days at school in a lively fashion – which usually involved teachers being ridiculous and mean towards the both of them, some of it stuff I had gone through, and some of it their own stuff that I could not directly relate to. I would listen intently and try to make sense of it all in a way I had wished someone had done with me when I had been their ages. We played card games on the floor, mostly rummy, me in my ball of blankets on the floor with a cd playing, as it rained outside and we tended to the fire in the fireplace.

My father received money from insurance to fix his sports car after the car crash he had in Spokane. Tanya and my father split up soon after – which, given how often these split ups were beginning to happen I wondered if it really meant all that much to him – he seemed upset, but it wasn't like he had been with Patti. It was far more like his pride was hurt. He bragged a lot about how much he didn't need a girlfriend, but still spent hours a day talking to women he met online. He never went more than a week after one break up before going to the next. Most of them I wouldn't even call break ups since they never met. They would just talk on the phone for a few hours a night for four months and then it would immediately stop. Obviously my father wasn't dealing with anything. Something in life had greatly disappointed him and he wanted a quick fix. He wasn't mentally stable and it made me nervous. Not that anything truly terrible happened towards me like it had when I was fourteen. It mostly made you feel kind of sick if you saw the thing happening for what it was. And it might have been just me in that camp. I am the only person who really knows my father – and I know he had this well of misery that he would do anything to not have to look at.

My father decided on changing the car's original color of white, to black instead. Though, this put him over the money he had gotten back - so he decided to try painting the car himself instead as it would be a lot cheaper that way, and he asked me to help him. He knew only a minimal amount about how to paint cars, and obviously I knew nothing. He borrowed this guy's garage at the end of town. It was cliché fall. There were orange leaves all over the sidewalk. It felt good to be outdoors doing stuff. We both spent the day masking the car, around the windows and so forth. The Arctic Monkeys had just come out with 'I Bet You Look Good On the Dance Floor' which played every hour, and I guess at the time I hated it. We laughed about things. It was for the most part, one of my more positive memories of him.

The problem we ran into when painting the car was that, in North Idaho (I don't know if this happens elsewhere), there is about a five day period when the world as we know it is awash with these tiny gnats. They aren't born with mouths – as their lifespans are so short there is no point in them evolving to eat. They just bump into each other, mate and die and the birds eat them. There are so many of them that it's hard to walk around outside. They end up dying in these piles by the trees, and then the birds come and gobble them up. There is no escape. If you walk out there, they get caught in your hair. You most likely end up swallowing them if you open your mouth to speak. And of course, they landed on the painted car. We managed to sort of keep them off the drying paint, but it was no easy task, and for that reason there were occasional bumps here and there in the paint job that would otherwise have been so-so.

I watched this very good movie by the director Jim Jarmusch called Broken Flowers, which is a brilliant film, and there is a song by Holly Golightly called 'There Is An End' that is featured in the movie that is no less brilliant. It played in my thoughts a lot. It's still a great song. There was something about the feeling of autumn 07' that to me was encompassed in the feeling of that tune that brings me back. That, and Peggy Sue by Buddy Holly. For three days, I had Peggy Sue stuck in my head.

I seemed to find myself on MySpace more and more. It had grown on me in the half of a year I had an account. It was beginning to be almost like a place where I lived in some ways. I loved working on my page to make it look decent. I spent hours finding good backgrounds, picking out good fonts, organizing my lists of interests. I loved searching through other people's pages, realizing how many interesting people in the world existed who had lives out there somewhere, and even more interesting, how everyone is linked. I spent one night clicking on friends of friends of friends. This onward march through people lead me to places in Africa, to Russia, to South America. And eventually, it lead to someone who lived in the small town about ten miles away from where I lived. This really got me to thinking about how everyone coexisted with one another. In some ways I felt incredibly alienated and lonely, but in other ways, I could say it was the firs time I ever felt a 'part' of the world. I lived in. And everyone had something to say, something to show me. Everyone was able to define and express themselves.

I started 'friending' people and I found myself confronted with countercultures I had never even known existed that opened my mind about how I thought about things. I discovered the beatnik generation through MySpace. I discovered the dadaist movements, I discovered communists, drag queens and countless other options of thinking I hadn't even understood were options. I found every outsider group there was. I even sifted through and found the creeps that would end up being the alt-right. Back then the group was smaller, but it was growing. And I started comparing people and ideas in a way I hadn't been able to do. It was because I was exposed to these different people that I found Charles Bukowski. It was due to people on MySpace that I grew to realize that being gay was not a choice, and that denying two people who love each other the right to marry was fucked up. It drastically changed my opinion on a lot of ideas that I had. Probably just as much as school did. And I was able to get a lot of feedback from my art. I got more feedback from MySpace than I did from tumblr and deviantart combined. Of course, none of these people were true friends because we never spoke outside the website. A few years later, MySpace died and facebook took over – which gave me more exposure to my extended family, but did very little for connecting me to anyone. A lot of these encouraging pals and online audience of mine whom I relied on disappeared – though I had a sneaking suspicion that I now probably follow some of them on tumblr. I had at my peak, close to 100,000 'friends.'

I was technically very stuck in Kendrick as I couldn't drive and no longer had any tangible friendships. But having this exposure to all these ideas and people from all over the world really opened things up for me. It really amazed me that all of these accounts were more or less ran by individuals. They were real people who were searching for the same things in life that I was. Someone living in Ohio, or even somewhere like South Africa was no longer thousands of miles away. There was a way to reach out and connect with them – to share ideas and such. What's more, I didn't have to shake hands or be a bucket of charm in order to get people to like me. I could express myself with my poetry, my ability to correlate information, and my aesthetic eye for coordinating artwork and showing my own. I could write them. And there was a sort of high to it for me, and it's a high I don't exactly feel all that ashamed of. Every morning I would wake up and have new messages and I would feel a thrill in seeing that there were new messages under everything I did. It became a high point of my day. For someone like me who always felt overpowered and overshadowed, or if I did manage to stand out to people I was a spectacle more than a person, it was relieving to finally feel acknowledged and understood. Of course half of them were 'CHECK OUT MY NEW BAND!!' but some of them were people who had read and really thought about what I had to say and wanted to express their ability to relate to me.

I started gravitating towards philosophy. Overtime, it became my primary interest, because it seemed to encompass everything in the world, and the essence of what I enjoyed and thought about. I wanted to reach some kind of higher state of truth. At night, when everyone else had eaten dinner watched a movie and went to bed, I would sneak down to the computer and begin reading wikipedia pages. I would click on everything I didn't know about. I did this every night for about a year straight. For this reason, I have a strange sort of understanding of philosophy in some ways, while in other ways I do not. Having a teacher can really help break complex ideas down in a way that is easier to apply to life. A lot of the writing was over my head. However, I took what I could from it, and I read and read anyway as the essence of these debates mattered so much to me. So in some strange way, I do have a familiarity with a  lot of academic philosophical concepts and ideas as well as some of the basic arguments for and against, but in another way, I am severely lacking. YouTube has been helpful in filling in my misunderstandings in more recent years. Secretly, I really wanted a philosophy degree at the time, but I didn't like the idea of going back to school. I also didn't like the idea of being a teacher. And then there was the fact that both my father and mom seemed to very much discourage me from getting a degree in philosophy. My father implied that if I was going out to pursue that, then he was not going to support me. My dad outright didn't like philosophy. He didn't see how the scientific method pertained to concepts that you couldn't physically touch, and he equated philosophy to religion and thought of me as being some kind of religious quack. It kind of disappoints me a little bit that I didn't end up going to school at seventeen and trying for a degree anyway. My life might have gone a lot differently. I would have that degree now, and I could have gone on and got another one. It would have helped me in the long run, and it was a passion of mine that I wish I had not been shamed into thinking was pointless. Life is fleeting and we should fill it with what matters to us.

I ended up buying philosophy books when I could. I got this book that had a collection of existentialist writings, and I guess at the time I naively saw myself as an existentialist – but I think that was mostly because it was one of the few books I had. I really liked the concept of free will, and I felt myself twisting with a bias towards wanting to believe that 100% free will existed. Free will is actually a very difficult thing to provide evidence for scientifically, philosophically, and psychologically. So to a degree, with the mounting arguments against free will, I started clinging to it defensively, and was actively seeking some means of not getting rid of this preconceived notion. Existentialism lays some of it's groundwork in the idea of libertarian free will (not the political libertarian), at least some of the thinkers who wrote existentialist writing seemed to have the notion that free will existed (not all), and for that reason too, considering myself an existentialist was favorable. Which obviously wasn't very straightforward but meant something about me and how I operated back then. Sometimes as well, I would call myself an absurdist when I was feeling cynical about life. I felt like I was sifting through so much philosophy that in the end none of it was definitive, and it was hard to feel like little old me was even capable of truly knowing anything. It's very easy in the modern era to have an absurdist mentality. Back in the dark ages, truth seemed very simple and obvious. God and Satan were real and everywhere. Death was always around the corner. It all made sense in this strange – what I now see as psychotic- sort of way. It's hard to make sense of the postmodern era.

I found Zack's sister Whitney online. She was still dating Melissa's (Zack's ex) older brother Josh. I felt this kinship with her, though I seldom reached out to her at all. I noticed that when I got into something, sort of specific, she was into the same things as well. I began calling myself an existentialist, and at the same time she was reading Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness. She loved Bob Dylan as much as me. She painted these GLORIOUS murals. I do not capitalize lightly. Her art was amazing. It stretched my imagination. It was psychedelic in many ways. She had this painting, I think she called it 'When the Sky Makes Love to the Sea.' It really felt like this epic gorgeous intangible ethereal reality of being in love. She was sort of a surrealist, but it was more broken up than that. She often times would make these swirling complex designs that encompassed reality. She clearly saw colors in much the same way I did – but in a lot of ways for more. I was jealous. Not in a resentful way or in a defeated kind of way, but in a way that I clearly saw that she had gotten to a way of expressing herself that I did not possess. Obviously I had more work to do. She seemed unaffected by the world around her. She was also gorgeous. I wanted to become her friend.

The problem though with wanting to become her friend was that, even though it seemed like we had a lot in common, she did a lot of drugs. Her life seemed mostly centered on whoever she was dating – which seemed to change every three months or so. She would date Josh for awhile. Then she would seem obsessed with some other guy, and then suddenly that guy would be gone again and it was Josh. Furthermore, she had friends, and they all drank and smoked weed all day. It wasn't something I necessarily wanted to do, or could do. I knew that if I started using drugs that my father would disown me. I needed to stay grounded, else I wouldn't be there for Allison and David. Furthermore, the prospect of reaching out and asking if I could hang out with her was very stress inducing for me. I couldn't find the words to say much beyond a compliment of a painting of hers or two. I felt like I was stalking, and I guess I probably was. I would go to her boyfriend's MySpace page a lot too, Josh. He mostly seemed to like talking cryptically. He quoted Robert Anton Wilson and had a chaos symbol as his picture. In real life, he was on the smallish side, dressed casually but wore an occasional button up, had wavy brown hair that he kept relatively short. He wore thick glasses. I put many of the books he claimed to read on my reading list. He seemed to like Chuck Palahniuk quite a bit. He seemed like someone you wouldn't notice at a grocery store at first glance, but if you looked in his eyes there was something quite a bit different about him compared to other people. I had never seen him in person. I had only these pictures – but I could tell there was something very intriguing about him.

I learned by stalking Whitney's MySpace with dismay that Zack had started dating this girl Valerie. It seems like shortly after he had tried to reach out to me, he had started to date her instead. She had been the other girl who Zack had his arm wrapped around back in the summer of 03' on the benches outside of the grocery store the day before school. How fitting. I had no reason to dislike Valerie. She had never done anything wrong to me. She seemed rather simple in a lot of ways. It was strange, because she almost looked like Zack, super blonde, a very elegant and plain face. A simple and thin body frame. They matched one another. Sometimes I saw Valerie out by the bike path taking a jog. I never saw Zack with her on her jogs. It seemed weird to see her out there in the distance jogging – she was around Zack quite a bit. And somehow I never got to see him.

I was always caught in this in between state. Was I waiting for Zack to someday come back to me? Hadn't he sort of promised in this weird way? What had his letter said that I never received.? I felt cheated, and partially I had cheated myself by not allowing myself to feel my real feelings. I felt tired of living a lie. I felt that part of my problem had been holding onto this secret that I was still in love with Zack. So I decided to come clean to Sarah. It would be easier, since she was now adjusting to her life in Texas, and I wouldn't have to look her in the face and tell her. So I wrote her this letter, and told her the truth. That I had never actually stopped loving Zack at all. I had just hid it from her. She took awhile to write me back. Several days in fact, which was strange. She didn't have a job yet – and I knew she read all my letters. When she finally did respond, she sort of shrugged it off. She said something along the lines that what I said was weird, and then proceeded to not talk about it – which was strange. She sidestepped my entire letter, which I had personally seen as being quite confessional and serious to me. I had fully expected her to be surprised and have a lot of questions, but instead she seemed inclined to almost pretend I had not said anything. I was slightly embarrassed to have told her, so I didn't say anything more about it for quite some time.

I hadn't had my period in over a year, and I had gained a lot of weight that summer. I guess it must have been related to the stress of having an ear infection. I know I hadn't really enjoyed much of what I had eaten. I told my dad about me not having a period, and so I got an appointment to go back to the doctor in relation to my lack of a normal cycle and the weight gain. I was of course hesitant to go, but the doctor I had seen the previous year had left the hospital, and the new doctor was this younger woman. I really liked her. I've never had a doctor who made me feel as though my health mattered as much as her. She asked me for some of my symptoms. I told her what I normally ate. Furthermore, I got my blood drawn. I not only didn't eat for the time that you aren't supposed to eat when you are getting your blood checked, but I didn't eat for an additional day, and when I did, it was a bunch of lightly steamed vegetables and plain fish. I believe my father didn't want me to have anything wrong with my blood sugar levels.

But even with that additional day of starvation, drinking only water, and the super plain healthy meal I had had a day and a half before the check up, my blood sugar was incredibly high. It didn't make very much sense to me. I had insulin resistance according to my doctor with a high likelihood of getting diabetes, and she sat down and explained to me what it was. Having answered all of her questions, she told me what she thought. She said she strongly suspected that I had PCOS. She didn't judge me, and actually seemed like she really wanted to help me get the diagnosis that I needed. She rolled her eyes when I told her what the other doctors had said about me. She seemed to fully grasp why losing weight for me was so much harder than it was for other people. You can look it up, but basically there is something wrong with my ovaries, and my endocrine system, and the hormones in my body weren't even and it causes people to lose weight and is associated with mental illness, and a number of other symptoms. It really is more or less a collection of symptoms. To be sure, I had to go get an ultrasound, which showed that I indeed had a bunch of tiny cysts all over my ovaries.

I had one more doctor's appointment where they needed to do more tests on me. Then she was going to get me on some pills that helped with a great deal of the symptoms. I remember my doctor taking my father to the hallway for the conversation about my health and about the outcome of the tests. I didn't hear them talking. After that was all through, and I was dressed and such, we quietly left the building. As we were driving home from the hospital, my father was very quiet. He eventually started talking. Basically, he told me that this condition I had was too expensive for him. He felt that what the doctors were doing was some kind of racket. Then he started talking to me in this strange voice. He told me that according to the tests results, the doctor didn't want to tell me this, but there was nothing they could do for me anyway. I was just unlucky. He told me I was going to get fatter and fatter, sicker and sicker. And I would most likely be dead before I hit age forty.

Looking back, I think my father was lying about most of this. PCOS is not a condition that can be treated and recovered from, however there is a lot that people can do to offset the outcome, particularly when it is caught early like mine was. Doctors cannot just predict your death like that though for this condition. It's not how it works. I think my father was being selfish – he didn't want to pay to be diagnosed, he didn't want to be responsible for getting me medication – one of them being birth control – which he always frowned on in this right wing kind of way, and I site this situation as the worst thing he has ever done to me. I never got the help I needed. This also gave him the opportunity to use my weakness against me. He wanted me to believe I was going to die so that I never left. He was really particular about me never being independent. Sometimes he would scream at me in the coming years for being pathetic, not having a job and so forth. For a few weeks at a time he would occasionally give me the impression he was going to help me learn to drive, or get a job. But then he would stop helping me and it would all fall apart.

He wanted me to give up hope. And it sort of worked. It sort of made me crazy too. Because for the next two or three years, I thoroughly believed I was going to die, no matter what I did. I had nobody, and whatever I did was mostly pointless. I soon gave up ever truly believing I was going to leave. I was trapped. Trapped in a body that had turned against me with a particularly short expiration date. I was trapped in the house, trapped in Kendrick. This had a huge impact on me. I knew in my mind that I would never experience what it meant to be in love, or to go many places. There was always MySpace, but that would be as far as it went. Sometimes I would let myself forget about this whole issue for a month of two. I called Sarah, but she was distant. I think to her, forty was still a long ways. She tried to act like it was fine since I was still technically a teenager and she couldn't imagine being forty, so it didn't matter. She wasn't really ready emotionally or maturity wise to help me face that reality, so I did so alone. She was far off in another place, and she had her own life to contend with.

I stopped crying. I didn't cry for years. I lived through books, and through the lives of my younger brother and sister. I would often read about three novels a week. I became a communist, but I didn't tell anyone – so I thought about the social order of the world along those terms. It was my only defense mechanism from having to think about myself. To my younger brother and sister, I was their fat older sister who was always home – and without consciously realizing it, they saw my existence as a sort of homeostasis for the family. Nobody questioned what I was doing with my life, or why I had no goals. Nobody asked me how I felt, or anything about myself. I learned to mold myself into whatever other people wanted me to be, as self defense. It didn't seem particularly meaningful for me to have goals for myself, seeing as my life was going to be short and painful and my father would most likely dangle the carrot without letting me actually get ahead anyway. At best, it was humbling as I was basically living the opposite life to what most people my age were doing. Most of them were out driving around, feeling young and alive. Partying, sleeping around, exploring the world in this dynamic way that I could never be apart of. And here I was, contemplating man's place in the universe, the social order and society as a whole, and the inevitability of death. I saw myself as extremely impermanent.

What mattered more was always the big picture for humanity as a whole – things that mattered long after people came and went. It hurt to even think in terms of myself in the first person. I stopped even thinking the word I or me. It's very hard for me to explain what that is like, to just not consider yourself in your own thought process. Plus, with my parents ego, and all the competing egos of my family, I didn't feel like there was a lot of room for my own. Because if I dusted it off, and I decided to act like they did, I knew it would be destructive. Occasionally it happened, and it never worked out in my favor. So I withdrew into a sort of shell, and I stayed that way for a long time. Secretly though, I held onto these weird little hopes. When I was by myself, I occasionally had images of myself as thin and beautiful and happy. I imagined Zack would someday come back, and there would be this day someday down the road where my troubles would be over and I would have friends again. That hope hid between the lines of the books I read. It was in the romances of the characters in books, the bravery. Reading was a way for me to both escape, and to find the words to express what I was feeling. But I rarely let myself have hope. Hope meant getting hurt. And I didn't want my anyone, including myself knowing I still had hope.

PART 60 - https://tinyurl.com/y8qqo2tk

PART 59 - https://tinyurl.com/yd79nbcs

PART 58 - https://tinyurl.com/yc3zzr5k

PART 57 - https://tinyurl.com/y9slhq2w

PART 56 - http://tinyurl.com/y7v9kbn2

PART 55 - http://tinyurl.com/y8fy3uew

PART 54 - http://tinyurl.com/yb8nlwvh

PART 53 - http://tinyurl.com/yae9wgbj

PART 52 - http://tinyurl.com/ybwft2g6

PART 51 - http://tinyurl.com/y9gsjg4j

PART 50 - http://tinyurl.com/y7729d45

Part 49 - http://tinyurl.com/ydbpgkqw

PART 48 - http://tinyurl.com/ydcn5uuu

PART 47 - http://tinyurl.com/y8xyogl9

PART 46 - http://tinyurl.com/ybqoxned

PART 45 - http://tinyurl.com/y94784tz

PART 44 - http://tinyurl.com/ydfpbzxt

PART 43 - http://tinyurl.com/yckvswd7

PART 42 - http://tinyurl.com/ycnng83q

PART 41 - http://tinyurl.com/y84kmttv

PART 40 - http://tinyurl.com/y8aj6kmq

PART 39 - http://tinyurl.com/y97vprft

PART 38 - http://tinyurl.com/ycr7la8q

PART 37 - http://tinyurl.com/y8trssqd

PART 36 - http://tinyurl.com/y9ygq9q8

PART 35 - http://tinyurl.com/ya5xhe2f

PART 34 - http://tinyurl.com/yc6y4p69

PART 33 - http://tinyurl.com/y87449dz

PART 32 - http://tinyurl.com/ycetanep

PART 31 - http://tinyurl.com/yae3o4rd

PART 30 - http://tinyurl.com/ybht9aul

PART 29 - http://tinyurl.com/ybfcr9j2

PART 28 - http://tinyurl.com/yagdlo47

PART 27 - http://tinyurl.com/ydcj5fgf

PART 26 - http://tinyurl.com/y73nvl73

PART 25 -  http://tinyurl.com/y6v6pgoj

PART 24 - http://tinyurl.com/ycak5d8r

PART 23 - http://tinyurl.com/yac6sk3g

PART 22 -  http://tinyurl.com/yat6cfnw

PART 21 -  http://tinyurl.com/y783egno

PART 20 - http://tinyurl.com/y8jskymt

PART 19 - http://tinyurl.com/rfhbms8

PART 18 - http://tinyurl.com/ycrznrwk

PART 17 - http://tinyurl.com/y77unlng

PART 16 - http://tinyurl.com/yadpsv8c

PART 15 - http://tinyurl.com/yb3lt6k5

PART 14 - http://tinyurl.com/yb4cfedq

PART 13 - http://tinyurl.com/yalanq9s

PART 12 - http://tinyurl.com/yc79mw94

PART 11 - http://tinyurl.com/yc9qhj84

PART 10 - http://tinyurl.com/yb734w24

PART 9 - http://tinyurl.com/yc2t6vfw  

PART 8 - http://tinyurl.com/ybl37utq

PART 7 - http://tinyurl.com/ybvo283g

PART 6 - http://tinyurl.com/kbc9dwu

PART 5 - http://tinyurl.com/msnz4am

PART 4 - http://tinyurl.com/k9x8esg

PART 3 - http://tinyurl.com/mwp9atx

PART 2 - http://tinyurl.com/lbt6xq2

PART 1 - http://tinyurl.com/l8xbvg8

[rosemaryturgeon-blog1]

Why Black Ladies Are Leaving Behind The Women's Liberation

When it concerns typical wedding ceremonies, the new bride's family bears the expense, as well as the mother helps the bride-to-be carry out all the preparation and organizing. I lately received an e-mail coming from a woman that merely had not been certain just what to perform in her relationship and also in her life. ( HealthDay)-- All those hrs spent checking out bedtime stories might pay off for you and also your children past foreign language and also brain growth: New research study proposes this is actually also great for behavioral and social skill-sets. But his enthusiasm was genuine; whatever might seem fake about such a passion somewhere else, it could be understood as a truth in the provinces, where, morals and etiquettes doing without modification or even chance or movement or mystery, relationship ends up being a need from lifestyle. In coming New Year 2012 the Leo astrology forecast in the field such as organisation, finance, love, passion, journeying, abroad opportunities, marriage, Jobs, job, Funds, wellness and residential property. ( HealthDay)-- Obstetrician-gynecologists state frequently carrying out exterior and speculum assessments in asymptomatic older ladies, according to a research study released on the web Jan Through this from examining it created that both far better and worse for ladies since that suggested that knowing ideology written through males would certainly not be a refuse from females's timeee but this additionally implied that top-fitellen.info girls's means from thinking as well as carrying out factors were actually ruled out to have just about anything of specific or even outstanding profound market value. It is in this geophysical location where patriots" come, knee-jerk reactionaries that presume Merka" was produced through some fictitious the lord, that folks like queer-sexuals" are actually that god's oversights, and also towel scalps"-- folks which could be Islamic or from Arabic descent-- are actually problematic infidels.

Surgical procedure to restore the nose makes considerable improvements to the bone tissue as well as cartilage of the nostrils, as well as your physical body requires time to cure and readjust to these changes. I have actually functioned very hard at being actually OKAY, continuouslying manage a family members company in his absence and also being the main caretaker of 3 often upset teenage children. Similar To Ellen Corby, Willpower had actually been actually advised through his agent to become part of a 'Nyc relationship' along with a girl, to hide his homosexuality. Regardless of significant differences in opinions, the most of females know at last just what occurs with their physical bodies at extreme amounts of sex-related enjoyment. New bride kidnapping or marital relationship by abduction, is the method where a woman or even woman is abducted for the purpose of a pressured marriage New bride kidnapping has actually been exercised traditionally in a lot of portion of the world, and it remains to happen today in some spots, especially in Central Asia as well as the Caucasus, in countries such as Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan as well as Armenia, and also in Ethiopia. This is exciting as sexuality is actually connected with affection notifications. This encloses social, social and political actions, concepts and ethical viewpoints that impact girls in day-to-day lifestyle. There is actually nonetheless a lot for a woman to pick up from the component also consequently much of the information absolutely offers perks for both as well as not merely the female. If you are actually blessed sufficient to meet his family members or even he meets your family members, after that there is some hope to this relationship, yet researches have actually revealed that individuals in partnerships along with divorced males rarely fulfill his household, not either performs he satisfy your is mostly given that both of you are alarmed of the family response. The health care neighborhood utilizes the phrases "desirable body weight" as well as "suitable weight" interchangeably and also analyzes each by means of weight-for-height dining tables including the Metropolitan Life Insurance Provider's weight-for-height dining table and the body system mass mark table, inning accordance with the book "Essentials for Health And Wellness and also Wellness." Metropolitan's dining table notes the optimal weight varieties for 5-foot-6-inch females baseding on their body structure, while the BMI table reports that 5-foot-6-inch ladies possess the very same optimal weight no matter body system frame.

[frabjous-fragment]

a critique of lesbian discourse from a nonbinary perspective

(saw something that upset me enough to want to get my opinion out there, so here i am, turning to my tum blur dot com poe eh tree blog to engage in lgbt discourse. happy pride)

I am an agender person designated male at birth. I consider myself pansexual with asexual characteristics, but historically, I have mostly been romantically involved with people who could be painted broadly as transfeminine. Because of this, binarism that tries to divide me from the lesbian community has always stuck out to me more. I hope to illustrate to people who will keep an open mind how the dismissal of individuals identifying themselves as bi lesbians is rooted in binarism.

This carrd seems like the most comprehensive and mainstream formulation of the argument I could find, so I'll go down it point by point. Before diving in, though, I want to point out that the author, an asexual and nonbinary dfab lesbian, feels so strongly about this issue that they operate a blocklist of people who identify as bisexual lesbians on Twitter. Bear the fact that people feel strongly enough about the issue to draw lines in the sand through the community in mind, as we dissect the causes, effects, and purposes of this issue's hot button status.

tl;dr: There is no antagonistic conflict of interest between bisexual women and lesbian women.

"Lesbian is not an umbrella term." It's not surprising to me that the carrd opens like this, since the entire argument requires this prior, but the formulation here is actually very weak and even concedes things that weaken it further. "These simplifications of people's sexuality were grown out of as queer people started to create labels and spaces that more accurately described them." Buckle up, because most of the rest of this post rests on this very loaded throwaway sentence. This is a simplification of the truth and overlooks some pretty unfortunate history. The fact of the matter is that bisexual and asexual people were included in the discourse of the gay rights movement from the very beginning. The Asexual Manifesto was written in 1972, and Donny the Punk, founder of the first LGBT student movement, identified as bisexual (recorded in writing earliest in 1972- incidentally, when he discusses his break with elements of the gay liberation movement, due to his treatment after falling in love with a woman in 1970). Therefore, the argument that people simply used weak terminology like "homophile" in the early days because there was not more specific terminology available to people lacks something. The cruder truth is that it was all people needed for compatibility, to go to gay hookup spots, make friends, have sex, and maybe find a long term relationship. Bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, and further subcommunities arose with the rise of gay identity politics, and conflicts of interest within it. Who would these conflicts of interest be revised out of our community's history? The answer is simple and unfortunate- sexism. Donny was far from the only individual met with the sentiment that he was a gender traitor- lesbian separatism, an unfortunate reaction to real issues the early gay movement had with representing lesbians, swept through lesbian spaces in the 70s, devastating bisexual and transgender women and bolstering the nascent bisexual and transgender movements. By the end of the decade, TERF queen Janice Raymonds included "testimony" from other bigots against two named trans women existing peacefully in lesbian spaces, in her hate screed The Transsexual Empire, quoting another TERF's writing as saying "I feel raped when Olivia passes off Sandy ... as a real woman." This is an obvious appropriation of the language of personal rights to justify bigotry, judgment, hate, and exclusion. All manner of feminists and lesbians have attempted to whitewash the darker sentiments of this period by dismissing the proponents of radical, genocidal propositions like Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto as "just venting" or "fringe lunatics". (To not get too into it, Solanas went back and forth on whether or not her work was satire, in a manner I find eerily similar to what reactionaries do when they put 'this account is satire' on their Twitters.) This is easy to prove incorrect; non-buzzword, actual, political misandry had reached the highest levels of feminist leadership and academia. Observe what one of the first professors of women's studies in the world, Sally Miller Gearhart, had to say on "the male question": I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future. "The future is female" is a phrase that has been effectively neutralized and recuperated by less radical elements, which I am all for. It is vague enough to work to better ends than the next two points by itself. II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. Here it becomes more clear that, in the minds of many prominent feminists of the 1970s, women would have to be supreme over men. There isn't much of another way to interpret the statement that women must bear all responsibility for humanity. III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. How would this be done? The only answer is eugenics through selective abortion imposed by the state, and genocide. Clearly, even from just a perspective of women's rights, this is inadmissible to anyone who is genuinely pro-choice on the

subject of women's bodies, even though this is not a situation we usually think of. The very suggestion of this is fascistic. Make no mistake that the modern sentiment against bi lesbians is not rooted in the same fascist gender essentialism. One denies that "benign" anti-bisexual and anti-transgender sentiments still predominate in lesbian and gay communities at your own risk. Not only are you speaking over the lived experiences of people like me, you are speaking against the statistics. Not only do incredible majorities of 88.5% of gay men and 71% of lesbian women, compared to 48% of bisexual and similar people, still exclude trans people from romantic and sexual considerations due to the subliminal sexism they learn from both mainstream society and their LGBT communities, but surveys show that gay men and lesbian women respectively distrust bisexual men and bisexual women's attraction to them and affiliation with their communities. (Also widely*... couldn't resist pointing out the common eggcorn.) "Lesbian used to be the term that described all sapphics, but isn't anymore, and that's a positive thing. Having more specific labels has allowed for people's bisexuality and pansexuality to not be erased in common language, and was a step towards getting rid of the pressure for people attracted to multiple genders to 'pick a side'. The emergence of terms like 'bi/pan lesbian' and 'bi/pan hetero' reinforces the notion of needing to 'pick a side', and obscures the common definitions of all the sexualities involved" This is that concession that I mentioned earlier. Credit where it's due, it's an elevation of the discourse to actually admit this when other people won't even do that. But it again ignores why these pressures exist, and incorrectly presupposes a demand for terminology that could be argued to be divisive without looking into why such a demand exists in reality. In a world without these terrible and stupid issues of sexism, people would simply say "I am both gay and straight" and everything would be dandy. Nobody has ever called themselves "bi/pan hetero" and I'm almost not even being hyperbolic. It's not an identity community. Proposing this just sets up the writer's argument that the terminology of "bi/pan lesbian" (and its more accurate parallel, "bi/pan mlm", which I have seen- putting aside my qualms with the limitations and binarism of xlx terminology even when the left operator is nb) divides the bi/pan community. This is the same logic battleaxe bisexuals who view the pansexual label as biphobic and attack people they see as bi (and yes, pan people are also bi by definition) use for their argument that the pansexual label divides bi people, when the only people that I see it "dividing" are the same people getting pissy about trifling points of queer theory that nobody else cares about for no proven reason. In real spaces, nobody tries to get bisexual people to line up on one wall and pansexual people to line up on the other. Pan people do not engage in biphobic discourse. The issue is empty; a non-issue. This it shares in common with the bi lesbian discourse, where the issues are not directly with the communities under fire, but instead vague, abstract, unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable notions of "omg you'll make the straights think [blank]!!" It seems like a theme where, even within LGBT, majorities attack their negations and accuse them of being divisive for asserting themselves and asking for some solidarity in return for the solidarity they provide in the community; you see this with asexual and trans people as well, but that's not what this post is about. Since the entire argument is built on this first point, I could honestly stop here, from a logical perspective. But people have strong emotional responses to the subsequent points, and without going through those, people will change "is not" to "ought not to be" and carry on.

"Making Distinct Spaces for Different Sexuality's Unique Experiences is Important." Around here is where the carrd really starts to resort to trying to twist truisms against their opponents, and on the briefest reflection this doesn't work. The idea that the term "bi lesbian" erases the distinction in between bi women and lesbian women seems to me to commit a category error by defining lesbian women as exclusively homosexual women and then pointing out the obvious truth that these women are distinct from bisexual women. The truth is, bisexual women and lesbian women are not categorically different in really any way other than their relationship to heterosexuality, a distinction easily expressed by- you guessed it- the label "bi lesbian". To reiterate and combine into earlier points: There is no antagonistic conflict of interest between bisexual women and lesbian women.

"Woman Aligned Nonbinary People are Included in Lesbian Attraction". Another truism. Let's move on to the single clause of the single sentence that contains the actual argument- "implying otherwise by wanting to separate that attraction into a new label is enbyphobic invalidating lesbian attraction" So, hi! As a woman aligned nonbinary person, I am here to tell you that this is not correct! I think this is a lot easier for dfab nonbinary people and dmab binary trans women to say than is it for dmab nonbinary people like myself to say. When your identity is as arcane as "I am not a woman but I identify with women because I am of a marginalized neutral gender", a lot more people decide not to take you seriously. If you take out the bolded words, this statement becomes correct, so we're going to focus on them. The only people saying anything about non-binary people not being included in lesbianism by default are the antis and the radfems they unwittingly serve, who actually do believe that point and see it as a good thing. But unfortunately, as a dmab nonbinary person who does not get sorted as a woman under binarism, my experience has been that I am already excluded from lesbianism in practice. If you get sorted as a woman under binarism, good for you! But to say that all lesbians do is obviously incorrect, when you consider all the budding trans women who still have beards and face largely similar issues in the lesbian community. To say that this state of affairs is fine is harmful to trans people; to say that this is different from what people like me face is arbitrary, and arguably binarist. Sapphism needs to look deeper than the surface and accept a foundation built on ties of solidarity and identity with no tests of purity.

"Having a Lean or Strong Prefrence Does Not Make You Any Less Bisexual". (Preference*, firstly.) I am not sure what this truism is doing here. Even many bi lesbians would agree that preferring other women is not what makes them lesbians, their membership in the lesbian community is what makes them lesbians. Refer to the above point; each community should be built on nothing more than solidarity and identity.

"Lesbians Don't Have Attraction to Men or Men-Aligned Nonbinary People, Even When on the Split Attraction Model". Here it is, the Big Chungus of arguments in the bi lesbian discourse. This is one that is seen often that people feel very strongly about, and probably the most contentious, since the implication that bi lesbians facilitate abuse of lesbians seems to motivate how a lot of people feel on the subject. Who has the power here? The insinuation that bi women have more privilege than lesbians is silly and biphobic. Clearly, it's the abusive men who have all the power in this arrangement. So how is the presence or absence of bi lesbians going to change what abusive men, who don't believe in sexual orientation, let alone care about it, decide to do? It can only change the excuses they use, which are chosen at convenience. This is a trick that patriarchy has played on us to get us to attack each-other instead of the enemy. For such a common and spicy point of rhetoric, I'm surprised I didn't write more against it here, but I really feel that the argument against it is that simple. I'll add a personal note here, and say that the dismissal of the divergent opinions of people sorted as males under binarism, alleging that we're "rapey" and want to appropriate things that aren't ours rather than participate in solidarity, is incredibly harmful to those of us who happen to be lesbians, even by the strictest trans-inclusive definition.

"Trans Women are Women". Truism. This is by far the weakest point. Nobody is advancing "bi lesbian" as a trans-inclusive label, though as I said above, it's a statistical fact that bisexual people are much more trans-positive than homosexual people, and therefore, as a transgender person, I tend to feel more welcomed around them. Of course, that's not a categorical distinction, but an unfortunate tendency.

"A Lesbian isn't Less of a Lesbian for Previously Dating Men". Truism. This is a stronger point, but only because it is closer to real rhetoric supporting the idea that bi lesbians are "real". Bisexual women will answer the question of "would you be open to dating a man again?" in the affirmative, and homosexual women will answer in the negative. Some members of the lesbian community do not completely rule out the prospect of dating men, even though it is not something they currently pursue.

The above are the reasons why the community should not fall into the bi lesbian discourse, and the refutations to its arguments. In order to be in full solidarity with fringe members of our sub-communities against bigotry, we must not fall into needless categorical division of groups when our interests are the same. There is no antagonistic conflict of interest between bisexual women and lesbian women.

[writingguide003-blog]

What It Was Like To Work On 'Roseanne,' According To A Writers' Assistant

New Post has been published on https://writingguideto.com/must-see/what-it-was-like-to-work-on-roseanne-according-to-a-writers-assistant/

What It Was Like To Work On 'Roseanne,' According To A Writers' Assistant

The “Roseanne” writers room ― defunct as of Tuesday, when ABC swiftly canceled the series in response to one of Roseanne Barr’s racist tweets ― knew to anticipate blowback when they wrote the titular character’s controversial crack about “Black-ish” and “Fresh Off the Boat.”

In the April 3 episode, after Dan sarcastically bemoans sleeping through “all the shows about black and Asian families,” his wife quips: “They’re just like us. There, now you’re all caught up.” The viewer backlash to what seemed like Roseanne Conner’s dismissive attitude about programming centered on minorities was immediate. 

But according to Ryan Kemp, a writers’ assistant on the recently concluded 10th season of “Roseanne,” the joke was meant to signal tolerance ― a message, he said, the sitcom’s new writing team attempted to advocate throughout its popular return. 

“The more I think about it, the more I think [the ‘Roseanne’ cancellation] is actually in line with what the show promised,” Kemp said during our 50-minute phone call on Tuesday, a few hours after ABC Entertainment president Channing Dungey issued a strongly worded statement that at once terminated Barr’s series and condemned her tweet insulting former Obama aide Valerie Jarrett.

“This is what we were preaching — or not preaching, but this is what we were going for ― tolerance and understanding and trying to bring an end to the division. This goes right in line with what the show was about. It basically proves that ABC is putting their money where their mouth is.” 

Kemp, who previously worked on “Scrubs” and “2 Broke Girls,” wasn’t intending to return for what would have been the show’s 11th season, but he watched with sympathy as his former colleagues lost their jobs in one fell swoop, and as the rich legacy of “Roseanne” ― a show that chronicled working-class travails with a candor rarely seen on network television ― was forever stained by its namesake.

In contrast to Barr’s online persona, Kemp reported that she was pleasant and considerate on the set and in the writers room ― a far cry from the behavior she presented on Twitter, where Barr peddled reactionary conspiracy theories and made insensitive remarks. His is just one perspective on what occurred behind the scenes, but he praised the “camaraderie” and good intentions of the creative nexus spearheaded by Whitney Cummings and “Roseanne” veteran Bruce Helford, even when it came to jokes they knew were questionable.

Ultimately, Kemp takes the same stance as Wanda Sykes, Sara Gilbert and many others associated with the program: Barr, who apologized late Tuesday night and blamed the incident on Ambien, should have known better.

Nonetheless, here’s his take on what it was like to work on “Roseanne.”

How did you find out the show was canceled?

One of my buddies who’s a fellow writer texted me. He was up for a writing position on the show. He texted me, “Have you heard about Roseanne’s most recent tirade?” I’m like, “Oh no. What now?” So I got online, and I saw what she said. I saw that Wanda Sykes quit, and I just kept reading the news. And all of a sudden I saw online that they’d canceled it.

What did your role on the show entail?

I was a writers’ assistant, so basically I would sit in the writers room and take down all the notes. I would keep all the scripts organized and edited, and make sure everything went fluidly in the room. We’d go down and watch all the rehearsals on set, and take notes on what worked and what didn’t. […] They let us pitch also, and I got to work with some great writers and an extraordinary cast. It’s one of the pinnacles of my career.

How did “Roseanne” differ from other writers rooms?

Everyone told me she was going to be difficult to work with and that she was very rigid about the way she wanted things. But she seemed very grateful. I never knew her in the first run, but other people said this was a 180 for her.

She seemed down-to-earth and concerned with the show and the messages and the people working on the show. She wasn’t out there trying to cause waves. I know she has a big personality, and she would make little jokes here and there, but not at anyone’s expense. When it comes to opinions regarding politics, we tried to keep it out of the workplace — but, you know, it’s “Roseanne.”

ABC

Roseanne’s sister, Jackie (Laurie Metcalf), shows up in a “Nasty Woman” shirt on the “Roseanne” Season 10 premiere.

Did you know from the start that Roseanne Conner would be a Trump supporter?

Yeah, but here’s the thing: We didn’t want to make a show about a Trump supporter. We wanted to make a show about what’s happening in America and why there’s such division. You can’t be like, “Hey, we think [Trump voters are] wrong, so we’re going to shut them out and hopefully they’ll go away.” It doesn’t work like that. We have to understand where people come from and why people feel this way. These are the conversations we’re having at home with our families, and we wanted to bring that tolerance, because you can’t have tolerance without understanding.

That’s what we wanted to provide. I loved that. America needs help right now, and that’s all we were trying to do.

Do you remember the discussions about Trump’s name never being mentioned in the series?

We didn’t want to hit it on the head. We didn’t want it to be sappy. […] Yes, [Barr] claims she’s a Trump supporter. And she is, I guess, on Twitter. We never really talked about it onstage. But at the same time, she didn’t hate black people or gay people onstage. She wasn’t anti-woman. I think a lot of people hear “Trump supporter” and think “Nazi.” She’s not.

Listen. Everything changed this morning, and I’m still trying to develop how I feel. I’m currently glad they canceled the show. We can’t let people think it’s OK to say stuff like that or to feel that way or think that way.

How would you characterize the ambiance of the writers room week to week?

It was fantastic. One of the best experiences I’ve ever had in a writers room. We wanted to have the discussions. We didn’t want to just put things in a box and say, “This is what it is,” and label stuff as right or wrong. We wanted to have the discussions people are having at home, and how to understand how something like this could happen — how we could elect [Trump] as a president. It was a very open forum. It was very tolerant. We did some great work and explored some interesting things. I’ve worked on a lot of shows: “Scrubs” and “Outsourced” and “Undateable” and “2 Broke Girls” and tons of pilots in between. [“Roseanne”] was really, truly, a great experience.

This revival arrived with a lot of baggage.

It definitely felt like we were taking on a responsibility. It didn’t feel like, “Hey, let’s make a bunch of money and make a bunch of jokes about whatever.”

ABC

On Episode 7, Roseanne and her sister, Jackie, react to Muslim neighbors moving in.

I want to get a sense of the creative process. In terms of plotting out the episode about the Conners’ Muslim neighbors, for example, who is leading the discussions about how it will unfold?

There were a lot of executive producers on the show: Bruce Helford, Whitney Cummings, Sara Gilbert, Tom Werner. Everybody was weighing in, and all of the writers. One of the things Bruce did great with his room was treat all the writers equally and value all of their opinions and thoughts. And Darlene Hunt and Betsy Borns. Just all around, we really got to listen and talk and explore the ideas going on in the world, whether it was fears and other prejudices, where they come from, why and what’s being done about them, and where we are now compared to where we were 20 years ago in the first run of “Roseanne.”

Does the process of outlining an episode begin with a specific topic? For example, did the one with the Muslim neighbors begin as, “OK, let’s do a story about immigration and Islamophobia?”

Yes, absolutely. You have to know what it’s about, and then you come up with the story.

Did the finale start with the idea of the Conners receiving FEMA money?

That stems from the idea that working-class, blue-collar people in America don’t have the means if something happens in an emergency. […] We read a lot of articles, and we used our own stories and experiences. We examined a lot of examples. One of the great books that a lot of the writers read was Hillbilly Elegy. It was basically what’s happened to industrial America in the Rust Belt.

Did ABC executives sit in on writers-room sessions?

Oh yeah, they would come and give us their notes and ideas. ABC executives were very much in touch. I was never in those meetings.

Did scripts significantly change based on those meetings?

They changed so many different times in so many different ways. It’s tough to recall specifics. But I think we were all on the same page with the general idea, which is that we can’t make it too broad or too specific. We don’t want to say anything offensive, but at the same time we have to try to portray those fears that we have. […] There were several times we felt like we were pushing the envelope too much, but at the same time, everything comes from a place. And we’re trying to get to that point: Where does this come from? In order to explore that, we maybe had to do some things that weren’t as comfortable.

I remember there were some times when other co-workers would come up to me and say, “I can’t believe this is what we’re doing. It sounds like we’re making our main character a terrible person, a bigot.”

There’s the way things ought to be, and there’s the way things actually are. We’re not in a utopia where things are always exactly the way they’re supposed to be. In order to get to that spot, we have to address it from this standpoint.

How often was Roseanne Barr in the writers room?

In preproduction, she was up just about every day. She would have been up more, except we had to install an electric chair for her because she has bad knees. We actually used that to address the throughline of the opioid epidemic, which was absolutely real. She mostly had to ride around in a car, and we had to install the chair because the offices we were in didn’t have an elevator. The show actually bought an electric chair for her so she could be in the writers room more often.

We started in June, and we didn’t start shooting until August. We had June, July and most of August to write. She was up there almost every day, at least a few times a week. Not all day. Just to stop in and take note of where we’re going. She would listen and contribute a little bit, but mostly she was just there to say, “This is where we’re going? OK, all right.” She wasn’t disagreeable, she wasn’t obnoxious. I felt like we were all on the same boat on this; we all just wanted to work together in a group effort. There was a big camaraderie.

How often did she pitch or insist on any particular storylines or jokes?

There were a few times in the room where she’d say, “I like that joke,” and we’d highlight it or bold it, like, “Roseanne likes this one.” But there were so many different incarnations of every script and story that it’s hard to recall which ones those were.

Also, I was not there for the meetings behind closed doors. A lot of the executive producers would go off and talk for a few minutes, or they’d be in the corner talking. And I would stand by with a notepad just in case I needed to take something down. But there were a lot of discussions and decisions and jokes written that weren’t in the regular forum room. An EP would go and have a chat with Roseanne for five minutes here or Sara Gilbert for five minutes there. But that’s nothing out of the ordinary. So this is a long way of saying I don’t know which things she said she liked or what needed to stay.

Was there any talk about President Trump calling to congratulate Roseanne on the ratings?

We were actually all done before it aired. The writers room ended, and we shot the last episode the second or third week of December. Aside from email, I haven’t really had much contact with any of them since.

One joke that received a lot of criticism was Roseanne’s crack about the black and Asian families on TV being “just like us,” which felt like a comment on “Black-ish” and “Fresh Off the Boat,” two other ABC sitcoms. Can you walk me through the writing of that joke?

Oh, that’s absolutely about that. It was about the ABC schedule. That’s what the joke was based on. So that’s really all the thought we put into it. I think some people were like, “Is that going to come off as racist?” But it refers solely to the ABC lineup; it doesn’t have anything to do with anything else.

The idea we wanted to promote is “they’re just like us.” Everybody there is very open-minded, and we all basically have the idea that we’re all in this together. There’s differences, but we’re America and that’s what it stands for. That’s how we should treat each other, as equals. That’s the throughline of the show.

It sounds like writers already anticipated some blowback about that joke.

Absolutely, and that’s what we want to do. It has to be entertaining, it has to make people think and it has to make people question. You don’t have to do that in TV, obviously, but why not? We’re trying to make the world a better place, and certainly America. We have to all understand, and it’s not always easy. 

How much would you say Roseanne’s personal life influenced the show?

Less now than in the original, but like I said, I wasn’t there for the original. This was more of an investment of everybody, including Whitney, Bruce, Roseanne and the ABC executives. I think everyone was equally invested. It was supposed to be an eight-episode run, and then we were like, well, let’s do another one because of the scheduling. So we did the ninth one, and it was just great. We realized we had a hit. In the context of this show, I think it’s been lacking in the television landscape.

How involved were Whitney Cummings and Wanda Sykes?

Whitney was there through the whole season, and Wanda was there two or three times a week. She was involved. She sat in the writers room, she came to the rehearsals, she came to the shows. She was great. And Norm MacDonald and Morgan Murphy and all these big names. Nobody was too big, nobody was pretentious. It was a real group effort, with a sense of duty.

ABC

Roseanne and Darlene’s son, Mark.

Cancellation is the name of the game in television, but having worked in the industry for more than a decade, what are your thoughts about your colleagues being out of work because of something one person tweeted?

Man, yeah. That’s something I’m struggling with.

The more I think about it, the more I think [the cancellation] is actually in line with what the show promised. This is what we were preaching — or, not preaching, but this is what we were going for ― tolerance and understanding and trying to bring an end to the division. This goes right in line with what the show was about. It basically proves that ABC is putting their money where their mouth is.

It’s the right decision. And it does suck. A lot of people are losing their jobs. But ABC keeps track of the talented people that work for it, so I’m sure they’ll be able to find more work. I hope so. I think ABC should really assist in that — they have plenty of shows and plenty of opportunities.

But you can’t say stuff like that, and I think for the people who don’t understand why you can’t say stuff like that this is an opportunity to let them know why. It’s not that difficult to understand. I feel like Roseanne on the show would make the same decision if it was a story about one of her kids. I don’t think ironic is the word, but I think it’s serendipitous that it happened this way.

Roseanne herself aside, would you say most of the writers room leaned liberal?

Yeah. It’s LA. But it’s really like, “Let’s explore all the angles and all the sides to this.”

You remember the episode in Season 7 where [Roseanne Conner] got mad at DJ for not wanting to kiss a girl because she was black. That’s like [Roseanne Barr], from what I saw. What she’s like on Twitter, and what she’s like when she’s got a spotlight or a microphone, is different from what she’s like onstage. She was grateful to everybody, and grateful for the opportunity to come back because not a lot of people can make that kind of comeback.

How often did you reference certain plot points from the original show?

All the time. And we referenced it not for the sake of referencing it, but because these are the journeys and arcs we go on through our lives. Everything comes from a place, and the way she is now is because of the way she was then. 

We wanted to make sure DJ was married to that woman. It wasn’t, unfortunately, the same actor because of availability issues, but it was the same character.

Was there ever a moment when the writers wanted to depart from Roseanne’s personal politics and she vocalized thoughts on the Trump administration, health care or any other timely policies?

No, not that I was privy to. That’s not to say that nothing happened, but not from where I stood.

I think it’s a bummer because I do think the show kind of forged a place to help teach tolerance. Not to tell people what to think, but what to think about. I felt it had a really good way of doing that. But at the same time, I don’t want to support her. I don’t want to give her a stage to gain attention if she’s like that. Like anybody else, I think she just needs education. […] She wasn’t like that at work. Every once in a while, you’d hear, like, “Thanks, Obama,” or whatever. Just jokes. But nothing offensive, as far as I heard. I didn’t hear anything about her being insensitive. She seems like somebody who knows better. She’s smarter than this. She’s not that insensitive. She was very respectful of all the black people, gay people, whatever. She just treated everyone like people. 

This interview has been edited for clarity and condensed for length. 

RELATED…

Roseanne Returns To Twitter To Push More Racism

ABC Knew Exactly What They Were Getting With Roseanne Barr

Valerie Jarrett Calls Roseanne Barr's Racist Tweet A 'Teaching Moment'

Download

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[theliterateape]

A List of Things Americans Do that Get their Soldiers Killed

By Chris Churchill

I’m always made uneasy by the blind idolatry (different than respect) of our military men and women. When the little old lady goes out of her way to interrupt a soldier’s meal to thank him for his service. Yes, we must respect and support those who protect us. However, did you know that protecting our nation isn’t the only job that needs doing? Did you know that being a soldier is also a job? Did you know that police officers, fire fighters, ambulance drivers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, and government workers also protect us? All of them do it at great, but varying, peril to their own safety. Then, of course, there are all the other jobs that help make America the best it can be. Journalists, scientists, teachers, caregivers, professional drivers, construction workers, architects, inspectors, customer service agents, and even artists are all necessary to keep civilization running smoothly and keep us all healthy, safe, and protected in various ways.

Yet, we make sure to make ourselves feel better about soldiers dying by looking up from our copy of People (where we were reading about a reality show star’s wedding plans) by giving them platitudes. I get it. We all feel helpless to express the true gratitude to the people who are doing the job that most of us can’t imagine doing. The job that scares us all the most: going into a foreign land and putting ourselves in extreme danger. It’s the stuff of nightmares. So we thank those who do. And, to their credit, I’ve never heard a soldier reply, “You’re just saying that to make yourself feel better.” No. They always, politely and respectfully, thank the person for thanking them.

Here’s the problem. If you truly want to thank a soldier for their service, you can do it by changing your ways. Because we civilians have much more say in how many of our soldiers go off to be killed than we want to believe. Our behaviors are always partially responsible for whether or not other human beings will be sent into harm’s way and how much they will be protected when they are there.

Here is a list of things that we, as Americans, do that get our soldiers killed.

Fetishize them— We put them on a pedestal. They are somehow different than us. And, yes, they are in many ways, but they are also just like us in very important ways. They don’t want to die. They have families and friends who love them. They have a strong sense of right and wrong. They are human. They have good and bad motivations for the choices they make and the actions they take. They are not cartoons, reducible to a simple picture in your head that, once thanked, can be forgotten about until the next time you see one. “Oh look, a solder!”

Continue to be arrogant— It is hard to see that other people are as smart and valuable as we are. It takes effort some days to have true empathy. But if you want humanity to be humane, you’ve got to constantly remind yourself that other people, in other nations, with other beliefs, are equal to us. We, in America, were given a pacifier over two hundred years ago, to keep our infant nation happy in our isolated, abandoned place on Earth. That pacifier has been the belief that we are the greatest nation on Earth. In a lot of ways we are. But in a lot of ways, other countries are. Depends on what you want out of your country. And chances are, if you’re not in a completely horrible place, what you want out of your country is the only thing you’ve ever known a country to be. Don’t assume America is always right. That creates unnecessary conflict that is our fault in many cases. Which leads to soldiers going off to a possibly unnecessary war that will usually get them killed.

Continue to be greedy— You do know that we are the wealthiest country on Earth right now, right? Did we get there because we were the most industrious? Partially. But we also stole a lot of stuff, killed a lot of people and enslaved an entire race. And due to all the criminal activity of our forefathers, we have stuff. We have a lot of stuff. It is our duty, if we want to be a moral country, to at the very least be aware of our privilege and behave accordingly. You can grasp with all your might to your things and your way of life, ignoring that others don’t have it as good as we do, and you can twitch every time someone tries to take it from you. That sounds weak to me. I don’t want to be that country. I don’t want to be broke either. I want to share. If that sounds like we can only lose in a deal like that, because, after all, we already have more than everyone else, you’re seeing this wrong. Sharing allows everyone to have everything when they need it. And you only need your stuff when you need it, right? Continuing to grasp greedily onto your material possessions leads us to feel threatened when we really aren’t. It allows us to be defensive when we needn’t be. It allows us to send troops in to protect stuff. Which gets them killed.

Refuse to learn— Some people are happy being willfully ignorant. It keeps you a member of the groups you’ve always been a part of. I know that it’s difficult to better yourself in the face of ridicule, but you should. Choosing not to know something is easy and fun but it leads to making rash decisions that send our troops into conflicts that are our fault. And that gets soldiers killed.

Continue our addiction to convention— So many in our country have no sense of history or context. Many think that it is as it should be right now and right here because this is how it has always been. If they just picked up a history book or even Googled anything about the way things used to be, they might be surprised to know that, right here, right now, is different than it has ever been. And it will all change again very soon. No need to defend a way of life when it will, just as a function of time, ultimately transform into a new way of life without you noticing or caring. The times they are always a’ changin’. Trying to preserve the way of life of your state in 2019 is a fool’s errand and refusing to see that will cause you to make choices that will lead to troops being sent in somewhere unnecessarily and some of them will die. Then, next year, you will change your mind about your way of life.

Lazy thinking— Many of us don’t like thinking too long or hard on any problems. We have other things going on. However, there are things that need to be considered more deeply than “What’s for dinner?” and “What’s on TV?” and “Does this outfit make me look like Chuck Norris?” Some problems, when your opinion is needed, are important and require your attention. Do we send troops here or there? Ask why? What is the proposed outcome? What happens if we don’t? Is it just our pride that gets hurt? Is it our reputation? Damage to pride or reputation have two different sets of ramifications. Are we reacting from a place of childish emotions? There’s a lot to think about and if you are now saying, “That’s too much to worry about? Sometimes you gotta just get shit done!,” you are being irresponsibly lazy in your considerations of what should be done. That might just get a soldier killed.

Devaluing of science— You know science is a way of knowing something, right? It’s not a competing religion to the one you choose to follow. For those that worry that believing in science is UnChristian and UnAmerican, think of it this way: the religion of your choice tells you what your God did, science explains how God did it. See? Two different things! Easy.

Okay, now that we got THAT out of the way, let me just say: we need science. It’s one of those intellectual advantages that humans have that helps smooth our path to a civilized society. (If one likes, one might say that science is a tool given to humans by God.) Science is a tool that we can actually use to reduce suffering, to make work easier, to prevent catastrophes, to recover from catastrophes, to create alternative ways of doing things. Science even proves exceedingly good at reducing scarcity of resources, one of the great causes of wars in human history. Humans are always struggling over resources. Killing each other over land. Killing each other over food, access to water, technology, and fuel.

If we focused on using science to make things easy for every one, the preconditions that work as an incubator for war would fade away. (Weird thought: what if we used science not just to create weapons but to defend our soldiers or to render them obsolete?) But no, we feel like we have to yell loudly that we “Believe” in our country or our God to the exclusion of science or even reason itself. This actually causes soldiers to be forced into wars to die.

Devaluing of Love— I capitalize the “L” in Love on purpose. Love is the point. Not the economy. Not jobs. Not identity, racial, national, ethnic, gender or otherwise. The only point is Love. For some reason, Americans, while claiming to be a Christian nation, are a temple full of money changers. There’s a reason why Jesus flipped over those tables and chased the money changers out of the temple with whips.

When you believe that pure, unregulated Capitalism is the only legitimate way to run a country, you cannot also say that Love is at the top of your list of priorities. Money is. Possessions are. And then you defend your stuff instead of Love. You defend your land instead of Love. You defend your nation’s status instead of Love. Then, you create targets which kills other people (in case you are interested in that). This unnecessary creation of targets can lead those targets defending themselves, which leads to you becoming a target. And soldiers go off to die.

Criticize those that correct them— You understand this one. Being reactionary instead of humble. Always proclaiming instead of ever listening. This causes or maintains conflict. Which causes soldiers to go off to die.

Equate dissent about military options with lack of support of troops— The only real option any civilian has to protect the soldiers we purport to support, that we love to say we love, whose hands we shake in front of onlookers, is to be careful where we send them. Don’t just get insulted when the nightly news or cable news outlet of your choice reports that someone stepped on our toes or the toes of an ally.

As awesome as America’s power is and as admirable as it’s ideals, it is not infallible. There is no guarantee ever that every soldier will get to come home to make one of those tear-inducing videos of reuniting with their six-year-old at their school assembly. Each and every time we send troops out, we are absolutely asking them to be willing to die. So don’t make that decision like you’re drunk at a bar, shouting at the television, watching your favorite sports team. And absolutely do not shoot a concerned citizen down for asking, “Is this absolutely necessary?” It is our duty, if we actually give do care about them, to make sure we have considered every possibility that will not get them killed first. Then, as a last resort, we send them in.

These are some of the things we do, in our defense of self-image, in our defense of half thought out ideals, that kill soldiers. If you truly “support our troops”, don’t placate yourself with moments of “I shook that guys hand and thanked him” or “Hey look! A soldier! I’m gonna go talk to her.” More than likely, unless you share their experience, you’re not helping as much as you think you are. It might be a nice moments or a good pick-me-up for the soldier and you but there is a down side. By telling yourself that, by doing that, you really helped, you are less likely to actually do anything of substance to protect them from the basest drives of humanity.

Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to thank them while you’re killing them with your behavior? I’d say it was. There are other things our military can do to continue to build this great nation. I’d love it if making war was a much smaller percentage of their job, though. I’d love it if we could, by being more rational and responsible in our thoughts and actions, help to prevent as many of their deaths as possible. Did you know you had that power? Well now you do.

[theworstjedi]

Finding the Sunriders

Everything goes back to me in the end, Friyr heard her say.

It wasn’t so much a sentence as a sigh on the breath of the wind that he needed no language for. A feeling as most Jedi would term it. How Master Mahar might’ve termed it if she was still alive to apply strictures to otherwise meaningless words. Friyr rubbed a nonexistent ache out of his wrist, and his fingers unconsciously set to tracing the outline of old scars. Despite knowing few other Force Users could feel the Force pressed up against the back of their teeth and unfurling words on their tongue, Friyr glanced between the other mourners. The field of black robes was dense and unmoving in the smoke from Mahar’s pyre.

Friyr stifled a cough that earned him a few glances he could feel. With the Force encroaching on the confines of reality, his throat threatening to suffocate itself, and feeling like something of a grief tourist - the former Sith nudged the harnessed NM-1 spider droid resting against his shins. It wobbled up onto its spindly feet then, without verbal cue began to lead Friyr along the way back down the winding path to the temple in a dimming twilight.

Dromund Kaas never quite got colors the way Tython did. The miasma of hue felt wrong to Friyr. The vibrant shade of pinks filtering through the thinning trees and dappling everything in a thin veil especially disconcerted him after a lifetime of grey.

“These sunsets remind me of Korriban,” he muttered, voice raspy from a combination of disuse and irritation.

The droid, silently devoted to his job until then, expressed a sharp beep of disdain.

“Sure, sure the core’s prettier than the Empire, but that’s your opinion as someone the light isn’t constantly trying to kill.” Friyr was silent for a moment, then quietly muttered, “Korriban’s kinda nice lookin’.” The Core Worlder franken-accent globbed onto the back of his throat like peanut butter so the words came out sticky.

If a comm could verbally wince, then that was the sound NM made.

“Too much?”

NM grumbled.

“It’s really not easy to pin down a Pub accent when you’ve got everybody and their grandmother from Core Space down here.”

NM-1 made a brief reply, then thoughtfully launched into a very subjective and weirdly racial explanation of the nuances of sound between Coruscant, Corellia, and every other founding Republic planet Friyr didn’t care about until finding himself among them. Friyr – who might’ve satisfied himself with giving the droid a little hell for his (pre-programed?) biases otherwise – found himself wavering in and out of attention when he parted ways with NM at the Temple steps up until he drifted into a forced sleep.

--

Three days later the same thoughts that kept him up at night ran through unanswered in his mind as he paced the gold trimmed halls. Not being a Jedi but rather someone’s pet project they’d died half-way through, Friyr found himself, for the first time, with nothing to do but scuff up dust on the ornate carpets. Not that he had been everyone’s favored Sith, but he had never found himself unneeded even on his personal time. He’d had a lot of that after the funeral. Besides submitting a request to be made an official part of the Order after a year of remolding and untangling, there had been nothing to do. He usually spent free time exploring the gnarls and underbrush of Tython to seek the Force in unexpected place, but since Mahar had died--

It gave the Force time to press in too close and … babble, he supposed he’d call it. His relationship with her was much gentler than it had been in the past, but that didn’t mean he reveled in spending his time decrypting a very alien presence slowly ballooning into the empty spaces Master Mahar had left vacant. He paced memorized routes through the Temple oftentimes, trying to get away from her and dodging the grounds where she was most present among the foliage and streams. Sometimes he purposefully lost himself in the bowels of the building and then goaded some kind-hearted soul into helping him get back before people turned in for the night.

Today was such a day, as he stumbled into, well. He didn’t rightfully know. It was very dark and pulsed with orderly rows of soft blue light, like someone had tried putting all the stars into lines.

“What brings you to the archives, Initiate Illustratum?”

Friyr, still captivated by his unknown surroundings missed the voice over his shoulder and a few subsequent repetitions of his name. A tap on his shoulder jerked him from thought with an ungraceful “WhhaaHAaa--?” that earned him a few disgruntled Shhhhhs from a group of disarrayed Padawans at a table littered with holos.

The archivist – whose face Friyr couldn’t properly see in the dim lighting – said, amusement coloring his tone, “You’re Initiate Illustratum, correct?”

“Oh yeah, that’s uhh—that’s definitely me.” Friyr threw him a somewhat defensive fingerblaster. “What’s up?”

“My condolences on Master Mahar; she was a good friend of mine and spoke highly of you. I know she took the task of rehabilitating you for consideration as a Jedi to heart. When I logged your updated status as an Initiate yesterday, it gladdened me that her last purpose was fulfilled in the end.”

Jedi speech had a sterility to it that saturated itself in larger pools as one progressed up the Order, almost as though the Light within cleansed them from without. It and the unexpected praise almost left Friyr with little to say. Almost.

“Yeah, I mean, you live, you join the Force. Because no death, right?” He shot a couple of fingerblasters again. It felt very inappropriate, but Friyr had stopped caring somewhere between Korriban and getting his face broken. Probably around the time he got his face broken. “I mean, it’s done and was gonna happen eventually, so I’m just thinking about moving forward. The council approved me, but placing me in classes is going to trigger every single Master getting snippy about the whole Sith thing.” He punctuated with his hands, which were getting animatedly into his chattering. “And they’ll want proof I’m not, like, crazy.”

The archivist, patient to the last in Friyr’s opinion, kept a neutral tone. “You were relying on Master Mahar vouching for you.”

“Yeahhh, a little.”

“And probably Padawaning you.”

“They really made you an archivist for a reason.”

The older man, Friyr assumed by the thinness of his voice, chuckled. “I chose it myself, and I’d like to think I had a good reason. Do you want some advice from someone who’s done it before?”

“Been a Sith, had his mentor die, dealt with the council?”

“Two out of three, but I meant more so having been an Initiate trying to decide what they wanted from the Order.”

“Golly,” Friyr said, then immediately cringed and decided never to use the word again, “I’m not sure I’m looking for anything out of the Order. I know who I am as a Force User already, I just need to find the right people willing to straighten out a few kinks.”

Knowingly - how part of the Sith in him, part of the slave residually hated anyone who said anything knowingly – the archivist replied, “Of course you do. Although we’re never the same people we were, but I can tell when I’m not needed. But to your ends of finding someone willing to accept you, there is more to the Jedi than just the Council and the Code. Many of us believe in redemption, and former Sith aren’t that uncommon. They aren’t always popular or flaunted, but they find their way. Do you know much about different Enclaves in the Order?”

At some point Friyr’s brow had adopted a sober furrow. “No.”

“Well, you’re in the right place.”

“I’ll … keep it in mind, but I’m much more a worda mouth person, if you catch my drift.”

“Well there are a few Enclaves that come to mind that would be very happy to have you. The Sunrider Disciples are one. They’re a little bit of a misfit child of the Order. Dogmatic in a different way and a little reactionary to traditionalists in their beliefs, but they’re small and make a point of welcoming repentant Sith.”

Friyr drummed his fingers over his crossed arms in a roll. “How would I go about making contact with them? Like do you know any Disciples?”

“No, but someone’s bound to know someone who knows a member; I think a lot of them are Greenies, so Corellians might be a good place to start asking.”

“Corellians? What now?”

The archivist laughed again. “Welcome to internal Jedi politics.”

Friyr grinned. “I love politics.”

“Then you’ll fit right in.”

--

When the time did finally come for Friyr to leave, he didn’t expect that letting go of Tython would be so hard when he’d been so eager to leave for Ambria. Even though he couldn’t see it beyond a field of green, he turned around for a last look.

[butterflies-in-my-tummy]

Speak no evil, see no evil, hear no evil... kind of

How many times a day or a week or even a year do we say: “I just don’t understand why…” or “I would never have done that” or even “why didn’t they do it this way?” I know I do it quite a lot and within a range or circumstances, but when you really think about it; how harmful are these seemingly innocuous sentences? At the root of it all are two things; right and wrong.

Let’s break those down for a second, we generally all strive to do the right thing over the wrong thing, but how often do we decide that another person made the ‘wrong’ decision or if not wrong the 'bad’ decision. Maybe you think that it’s just a part of a normal day, one of those things that we all say and feel, sometimes it’s just easier to decided than another persons actions are asinine rather than as a result of ill informed thought or consideration. I am not talking about morality, although that is often an issue, I am ultimately talking about:

Judgement “I don’t understand why…” doesn’t seem so bad on its own, but think about the conversation and justification process that inevitably ensues. Someone else has made a decision that you cannot fathom the thought process for, in the most memorable circumstances this decision is to your detriment and it makes you instantly stressed, outraged or just irritated. “I would never…” now this one is surely worse, you are directly saying I judge this persons actions based on the fact that my own intellectual or moral compass (or just plain old common sense) would never let me follow the path that they have, which brings me on to…

Comparison If we are clear that we are all unique, individual and have been subject to a myriad of differing circumstances throughout each of our lives, it’s actually more shocking that you might ever do or think in the same way as another person than in opposition. To be honest if I have used this sentence, it is usually closely followed by an example of when I have been in the same situation as the person I am busy judging and I reacted differently - the 'right’ way.

The connection between these is the laboured process of justification and ultimately trying to make ourselves happier but usually in the short term only. These situations happen in every facet of life, be it in work or at home. I know I try to rarely discuss politics with my friends and family because sometimes the difference in opinion is shocking to me, and unsettling. So ignorance is bliss(?)

How many times does this actually work out well? I am not saying acceptance is easy, it’s not, and justification is often part of the acceptance process. How harmful is it actually, because when does it ever do us any good to ultimately say “I am better than that person in this regard” and for that matter, it doesn’t do our relationship better with that person. It opens up a black hole where-by we sideline every bad decision we think they have made (that affect us at least) goes to hide. It’s not even really a black hole, more of a cubby hole because if we are honest as soon as another shocking decision is made - there is the last one, coming back to haunt our good opinion of this person!

For me personally I am (during this stage of my life at least) a bit of a stickler for the rules, that isn’t to say I am a stick in the mud - I understand that sometimes it’s easier to go around an issue than through the rules to get to the other side. However something I really struggle with, is other people’s judgement, be it about me or about something we both have a bearing on. I will always try to be honest, I don’t mind curving the truth but I can never bring myself to be outright dishonest, even in so called white lies. I always take things at face value, or at least I try to, so when I have done what I thought was the right thing in the right way, and another person has completely disregarded and to a point made my actions pointless, I feel angry, upset and unbalanced. I really struggle to reconcile myself with the situation at hand. I wouldn’t have done anything differently but now I feel so helpless. So how do we regain our balance and set things back to a measured pace? For me it’s organisation, which can sometimes make this very issue worse but it is how I have taught myself to cope. It’s how I keep this side of the anxiety because if I allow myself to tip to far I will inevitably topple. I take every single thought and task order them systematically. I consider and and I make a decision, a steadfast decision that I must stick to or else the toppling threat becomes ever more probable.

There are no rules to follow that might help give us a brighter and lighter outlook, whatever point on the scale you might be, but for me this is what I try:

1. Empathy - Everyone has anxiety - some people are able to cope with it every day as a relatively normal issue, just like sadness. For other people it is a crippling experience, foreboded by an ever present fear of the worst outcome - an anxiety attack. Sometimes this anxiety can reveal itself in odd and sometimes difficult to deal with ways. Snappiness or anger, stubbornness or indifference, don’t take what is reactionary to heart. 2. Kindness - Treat others as you wish to be treated - if we are honest, we probably all find it hard when we are told to do something a different way. Especially when your way and their way produce the same result. So be kind to them and be kind to yourself, it’s ok to be different. Sometimes this is one of those times that whilst still being honest, you can be clever about your approach. If it makes another person happier or calmer to believe you have got to point A - B via point C, let them believe that you have whilst actually still going down your own route. 3. Acceptance - Take a breath and say Ok - if you can agree that you are doing your best, other people probably are too. Again just because they don’t exhibit the same markers of acceptance and progression that you do, doesn’t mean they aren’t fighting their own battle and reaching acceptance in their own time and in their own way. It might frustrate you, but why are you worried about them when you have your own demons to fight. 4. Imagination - Think outside the box - sometimes not amount of being kind, offering encouragement and clear statements will produce the result you were hoping for, so find another way to be at one with any given situation. Don’t let the frustration others are exhibiting get you down, look at it from a different perspective, maybe even their perspective and find a new way forward.

In short, walking a mile in the shoes of another before you make a snap judgment based on a reactionary situation, it might actually be very eye opening. It can be hard for people to open up, and they might not want other people to know about their struggles in fear of seeming weak. Or you could be like me and feel openness is important for your own functionality and progression, but I know that some people find that extremely hard to bear. I can honestly say I understand, when I am in a good place and someone in my life is in a place of struggle and darkness, I often want to run away and hide from it. I am familiar with the darkness and don’t want it spoiling my time in the light, but we have to have the strength to help our loved ones, they need to know that you are there with your light and you are saying “come this way”. It will bring your closer together. It comes down to those ingrained words again, right vs wrong, good vs bad, well for the most part (tyranny and psychopathy excluded) they’re kind of subjective, some people like to follow the rules, some people have tried and found the rules failed them, so they’ve created their own set of rules. Not to sound like a Kenneth Branagh movie but in general if we have courage and are kind to others, we will find it much easier to treat ourselves the same way.