#we are products and we are consumers and this is late stage capitalism

[rollercoasterwords]

like. the desire to be seen is so human and of course we want connection!! of course we want people to look at the pieces of ourselves that we put into the things we create and say hey i recognize pieces of myself there too!! but the scam of social media is that consumption is not connection. hundreds of thousands of people could click the heart button on your post but who does that connect you to? what loneliness does virality assuage? how long can we look at our faces and our lives and our art through the lens of an ever-present, ever-silent, ever-hungry audience before we can no longer see ourselves as anything but a product to sell? how long must we choke before we stop swallowing the lie that commodifying our humanity will ever bring us joy?

[postnuclearwar]

Companies during late stage capitalism: We've cut corners and costs with all of our products, and we're passing on the consequences of such actions onto you! The customer! :)

[tangibletechnomancy]

The reason I took interest in AI as an art medium is that I've always been interested in experimenting with novel and unconventional art media - I started incorporating power tools into a lot of my physical processes younger than most people were even allowed to breathe near them, and I took to digital art like a duck to water when it was the big, relatively new, controversial thing too, so really this just seems like the logical next step. More than that, it's exciting - it's not every day that we just invent an entirely new never-before-seen art medium! I have always been one to go fucking wild for that shit.

Which is, ironically, a huge part of why I almost reflexively recoil at how it's used in the corporate world: because the world of business, particularly the entertainment industry, has what often seems like less than zero interest in appreciating it as a novel medium.

And I often wonder how much less that would be the case - and, by extension, how much less vitriolic the discussion around it would be, and how many fewer well-meaning people would be falling for reactionary mythologies about where exactly the problems lie - if it hadn't reached the point of...at least an illusion of commercial viability, at exactly the moment it did.

See, the groundwork was laid in 2020, back during covid lockdowns, when we saw a massive spike in people relying on TV, games, books, movies, etc. to compensate for the lack of outdoor, physical, social entertainment. This was, seemingly, wonderful for the whole industry - but under late-stage capitalism, it was as much of a curse as it was a gift. When industries are run by people whose sole brain process is "line-go-up", tiny factors like "we're not going to be in lockdown forever" don't matter. CEOs got dollar signs in their eyes. Shareholders demanded not only perpetual growth, but perpetual growth at this rate or better. Even though everyone with an ounce of common sense was screaming "this is an aberration, this is not sustainable" - it didn't matter. The business bros refused to believe it. This was their new normal, they were determined to prove -

And they, predictably, failed to prove it.

So now the business bros are in a pickle. They're beholden to the shareholders to do everything within their power to maintain the infinite growth they promised, in a world with finite resources. In fact, by precedent, they're beholden to this by law. Fiduciary duty has been interpreted in court to mean that, given the choice between offering a better product and ensuring maximum returns for shareholders, the latter MUST be a higher priority; reinvesting too much in the business instead of trying to make the share value increase as much as possible, as fast as possible, can result in a lawsuit - that a board member or CEO can lose, and have lost before - because it's not acting in the best interest of shareholders. If that unsustainable explosive growth was promised forever, all the more so.

And now, 2-3-4 years on, that impossibility hangs like a sword of Damocles over the heads of these media company CEOs. The market is fully saturated; the number of new potential customers left to onboard is negligible. Some companies began trying to "solve" this "problem" by violating consumer privacy and charging per household member, which (also predictably) backfired because those of us who live in reality and not statsland were not exactly thrilled about the concept of being told we couldn't watch TV with our own families. Shareholders are getting antsy, because their (however predictably impossible) infinite lockdown-level profits...aren't coming, and someone's gotta make up for that, right? So they had already started enshittifying, making excuses for layoffs, for cutting employee pay, for duty creep, for increasing crunch, for lean-staffing, for tightening turnarounds-

And that was when we got the first iterations of AI image generation that were actually somewhat useful for things like rapid first drafts, moodboards, and conceptualizing.

Lo! A savior! It might as well have been the digital messiah to the business bros, and their eyes turned back into dollar signs. More than that, they were being promised that this...both was, and wasn't art at the same time. It was good enough for their final product, or if not it would be within a year or two, but it required no skill whatsoever to make! Soon, you could fire ALL your creatives and just have Susan from accounting write your scripts and make your concept art with all the effort that it takes to get lunch from a Star Trek replicator!

This is every bit as much bullshit as the promise of infinite lockdown-level growth, of course, but with shareholders clamoring for the money they were recklessly promised, executives are looking for anything, even the slightest glimmer of a new possibility, that just might work as a life raft from this sinking ship.

So where are we now? Well, we're exiting the "fucking around" phase and entering "finding out". According to anecdotes I've read, companies are, allegedly, already hiring prompt engineers (or "prompters" - can't give them a job title that implies there's skill or thought involved, now can we, that just might imply they deserve enough money to survive!)...and most of them not only lack the skill to manually post-process their works, but don't even know how (or perhaps aren't given access) to fully use the software they specialize in, being blissfully unaware of (or perhaps not able/allowed to use) features such as inpainting or img2img. It has been observed many times that LLMs are being used to flood once-reputable information outlets with hallucinated garbage. I can verify - as can nearly everyone who was online in the aftermath of the Glasgow Willy Wonka Dashcon Experience - that the results are often outright comically bad.

To anyone who was paying attention to anything other than please-line-go-up-faster-please-line-go-please (or buying so heavily into reactionary mythologies about why AI can be dangerous in industry that they bought the tech companies' false promises too and just thought it was a bad thing), this was entirely predictable. Unfortunately for everyone in the blast radius, common sense has never been an executive's strong suit when so much money is on the line.

Much like CGI before it, what we have here is a whole new medium that is seldom being treated as a new medium with its own unique strengths, but more often being used as a replacement for more expensive labor, no matter how bad the result may be - nor, for that matter, how unjust it may be that the labor is so much cheaper.

And it's all because of timing. It's all because it came about in the perfect moment to look like a life raft in a moment of late-stage capitalist panic. Any port in a storm, after all - even if that port is a non-Euclidean labyrinth of soggy, rotten botshit garbage.

Any port in a storm, right? ...right?

All images generated using Simple Stable, under the Code of Ethics of Are We Art Yet?

[macleod]

Since everything is getting worse, maybe you should get into anarcho doomerism. It's a mood booster because you're right about it never getting better

That response was mainly as a joke, sort of. The idea that in the consumer market everything is becoming more expensive and that the megacorps are making less quality products are just the natural end-goal of late-stage capitalism (do people still call it that?).

I am above all a positive longtermist (not in the effective altruist way, mind you), nihilistic at times, pessimistic sure in the short-term, but forever hopeful for the longterm end of humanity to do the right thing, become better, and that life will become monumentally easier for everyone through the use and development of innovative new technologies that help usher in and bring better social attitudes and equality in all forms. Anarcho-anything (especially 'doomerists') are not positivist, nor are they equality bringers. The only outcome in those societies is fragmentation of beliefs and standards (and a rapid increase in "them versus us", "Our blessed homeland versus their barbarous wastes") which will bring insurmountable amounts of human rights violations, and long-term static developments of scientific, technological, and social change for the masses. Anarchism is beneficial in small sects, but not for all. It is not scientific in nature, and against the sharing of knowledge and development. While I understand the momentary appeal of a "land without rulers" it just logistically doesn't make much sense. Have you ever tried working on a group project? or plan an event for more than one person?

I realize this response is more than what you were likely intending, but I am not in any way, shape, or form a doomer. Humanity for the past hundred years has gotten insanely better, insanely more complex, and insanely more equal and knowledgeable. We have hard times, we create problems, but we solve them, and we innovate. A hundred years ago nearly no one had electricity, children died en masse, mothers died in childbirth, most couldn't read, and disease was rampant and far more deadly. We are living in the greatest epoch of humanity, we surely have our own problems, but those will be solved, eventually, and new, better, problems will arise.

[stranded-ziggy]

I guess it's not a stretch to say if you use AI image generation services for fun you're also helping create demand for them.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the ol' "there's no ethical consumerism under capitalism so just do whatever you want" argument and I think that where you can you should try to avoid making your life entirely about consuming, for your own mental health if nothing else.

I get there's stuff that's unavoidable, I totally get that but there's no need to make a big all encompassing excuse.

AI I feel is just a product of that late stage capitalism mindset, trying to take away our motivation to create so we just keep consuming and consuming...ugh.

You don't need to generate AI images, so don't, not if you support and stand with artists.

If you can't afford a commission that's A-OK but don't contribute to our downfall just for the heck of it.

[catversary]

ugh, the current state of "the market" and consumer goods is so dismal. You try to find any clothing and there's a million ads for stuff made of the same polyester plastic blend coming out of the same 50 pollution-spewing, slave-wage, design-stealing factories under 100+ different names. It's all the same underdeveloped, overpriced, and cheap quality stuff.

Honestly I hate being a consumer. I think we're all being tricked into believing that capitalism has brought us wonderful things and increased our standards of living. It hasn't, because if it really were about providing the best to everyone, then we'd all have indestructible, immortal lightbulbs. Living under late-stage capitalism means the capitalists must find new things to sell to us, to keep the machine moving of turning labor into goods, and goods into profit. They create stupid, useless trinkets and advertise to us that we must need them. They create consumer trends, so you must replace everything in your home every 3-5 years.

I wouldn't want half of the things I have if it weren't for advertising. I never needed a hydroflask, and yet I have 3. I have never bought a single article of clothing out of necessity. I have so many skincare products that don't seem to do anything except have the appearance of doing something. I am frustrated with myself for falling for advertisements constantly, but is it any wonder when they continue to bombard me every time I go online? (Even offline! In junk mail and stores and the only real "third place" in America to go to - the mall).

[luxe-pauvre]

While I think that we’re definitely in capitalism’s end-stage, I’m not quite as sanguine, because I suspect that what the contradictions of the system will generate is nothing. As with anything consumed without respite, you eventually run out, and history is no exception. How will we define ourselves when the final bill comes due, when the eternal credit card is maxed out, especially since we’re incapable of imagining anything other than capitalism? […] “What haunts me is not exactly the absence of literal space so much as a deep craving for metaphorical space,” writes Naomi Klein in No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, “release, escape, some kind of open-ended freedom.” As Klein describes it, advertising and design mark everything in our reality, and we’re so constricted we can’t even imagine what wild open space would look like. For all that consumerism has promised us—comfort, security, identity—it was always the assurance that we could keep on purchasing our freedom that was the biggest illusion. Now the shipments are on back order and the shelves are empty, but for the time being you can still have whatever it is you want delivered right to your front door, never mind that the driver can never stop working. What happens after collapse when we can no longer define ourselves through products? No clue—the burden of defining some better world falls to those left behind after the rest of us have already left. In the meantime, have a Coke.   

Ed Simon, Tripping the Late Capitalist Sublime

[fredseibertdotcom]

Next New Networks, Part 3

I’m going to try, in as few posts as possible, to create a coherent timeline of the short, eventful life of Next New Networks, an early, consequential moment in streaming video history. 

From Part 1: Emil Rensing and I, with a huge assist from future Tumblr creator David Karp, stumbled into the brave new world of online video without much of a plan. 

From Part 2: Our friend –my former partner at Hanna-Barbera Cartoons, and our future Next New Networks partner– Jed Simmons introduced us to Spark Capital in Boston, who wanted to partner and fund Next New. 

Part 3: Late 2006 

What do we do now? 

Once Spark signaled their interest, we needed to get serious. I still had Frederator Studios, my successful and increasingly busy independent cartoon production company, but the excitement of this opportunity was overwhelming. Even if I was significantly older than the typical internet entrepreneur, I felt that my background in media and production could be meaningful. The first phase of the consumer internet required deep engineering skills because the infrastructure was still somewhat nascent. Web 2.0 had developed enough tools that even someone with my limited skills could participate. Besides, I had Emil on my side, someone who had a unique understanding of the state of the tech world. 

By summertime, after a variety of conversations and meetings, Emil and I settled on a co-founding team. Jed Simmons, of course. Emil had a start up friend –Tim Shey– who’d sold his DC based, interactive agency and moved to New York where he was consulting with some early stage video companies. I was stretched to thin to have an operating role in the joint, so we all agreed that my childhood friend and adult colleague Herb Scannell –former Vice Chairman of MTV Networks and CEO of Nickelodeon– would be a perfect CEO. Luckily, he agreed, and our management line up was in place. (David Karp would be our founding developer, until he launched Tumblr several months later, of course). 

We can leave the machinations of filling out the A-round of investment aside. Suffice to say, many venture capitalists were uninterested in any idea that didn’t have unique software attached –we didn’t– but we put together an investor group and board of directors that were excited with our vision. 

Next New Networks posters designed and illustrated by Frank Olinsky

Our vision? ah. yes. By the time we were on the road pitching our wares, we had taken the basics of VOD Cars and Channel Frederator and put together a plan that was based on “communities of interest,” which we felt would be the engines of viewership and growth. As Tim Shey later wrote: 

Next New Networks popularized the ideas of videoblogging and advertiser-supported online video, and pioneered the multi-channel network (MCN) business model and the concept of audience development, assembling a diverse and successful portfolio of original programming including hit channels Barely Political, VSauce, and ThreadBanger, and a network of independent creators such as The Gregory Brothers—racking up over 2 billion video views and thirteen Webby Awards, more than any online media company at the time.

Virginia Heffernan of the New York Times was probably the writer that caught onto what we had accomplished better than most.

By March 2007, we were fully funded with our first round, expanded past the Frederator/NY office into a larger space in the same building on Park Avenue South, and started to put together an amazing start up staff that could actually execute. At least, what we’d morphed our vision into.  Super distribution! 

(More to come.) 

[jiminsass-istant]

So ..about the boycott..

Those who are boycotting, they are not wrong. Infact they are on the right side. But you know what's problematic? Expecting BTS to speak up. That's just childish. Something that people will laugh off. They are literally employed soldiers in SKorea right now..

And some people don't know what a boycott is??! It literally means you stop engaging. If you are boycotting, stop taking the members' names? Stop reposting fun fandom stuff. Don't engage and just change your twitx display name and @. That's what boycotting means. If you boycott and still call yourself a fan, I'm sorry to say that you are looking for attention.

Asking bts to speak up, unfollowing Bam's account... This is all very selfish behaviour. Nothing matters more than the reality of P@lest!ne's suffering. Not your tantrums, not your tears, not your music and artists.

And speaking of streaming, I'm again saying this very blatantly, streaming barely moves the pockets of Hybe. It's the concerts, brand endorsements, albums and merch money that does.

So do your thing. If you are boycotting, do it properly. Stop engaging with anything bts related. Deactivate all your stan accounts. And stop shaming people for being fans.

It's late stage capitalism in this world right now. You simply cannot ask people to stop consuming things. But what they CAN do is spend. So ask them to donate. Not everybody has albums to play on their CD player. Not everybody can simply stop listening to the artists that saved their lives.

There are too many complex things in this world. Things we don't understand yet. So when Namjoon thanks army for streaming his song on his story, I am reminded of how they asked army to trust them. This 'trust' is not just about being there for them in 2025. It's much more than that. These are the same boys who have openly supported palestine in the past. Trust me, they know about the genocide. They know who's at fault. I'm not going to punish them by un-stanning them. That's just careless. I view them as people, not as products.

And everyday the fact that SB is associated with Hybe makes me angry and sad.

But you know what makes me sadder- the lack of permanent ceasefire. We can't claim to know where the money of these big corporations goes and comes from. The best we can do is protest, pressurise the U//S gov+ to stop supporting Isntrahell's crimes. Only the diplomats of other countries can do this. Like South Africa stood up.

Anyway, I can't rant anymore. It just feels so helpless that even in this age of internet and superfast communication, we as the citizens of this world are not able to stop a massacre happening in real time.

[maybuds]

Believe me I’m no fan of late-stage capitalism, but I do feel like that last anon is in a particularly doom-laden mood with regards to creative works right now?! Yes of course the big studios and streaming services have a stultifying effect. But step even a tiny bit outside the mainstream big-budget stuff and there are amazing films being made. Not to mention that non-English language independent films are exciting and interesting and able to reach a bigger audience than ever before, thanks to the internet. Additionally, the sweeping statement that “the music isn’t even that good” just seems…unjustified? There’s loads of amazing music out there right now, even on the most mainstream labels. And you have the opportunity to fund a massive range of creators directly via Bandcamp and Patreon! But beyond that, what about all the people who don’t go to gigs just to take insta-content? What about all the people who go to watch tiny local rock bands play in the pub? Or folk bands play in a barn? Or world music played at a night event in a museum? If you spend a lot of time looking at instagram and TikTok, of course you’ll see the shiny people who only go to activities in order to film themselves there. But there are so many people who don’t do that, who listen and watch and pay attention in the moment. Who close their eyes against tears because they’re finally seeing the band they loved when they were 13, and weren’t allowed to go. Who use VPN to hunt down obscure Hong Kong movies from the 90s. Who go to themed film festivals at their local independent cinema. Yes it’s annoying that the Western mainstream is largely so shallow, but there are so many ways to access more interesting art these days…I just feel like a completely negative view is misguided and misleading. I hope the other anon can find joy in turning their attention away from the most dominant (and chronically online) Western pop culture in favour of things they value and love.

i love those descriptions, and they give me a lot of hope; they’re actually a much needed reminder about what meaningful engagement with creative works out there can still do if we just look for it. but at the same time, i also understand where the other anon is coming from, because there really is something to be said about the state of creative media production these days in general and especially the media engagement that currently happens a lot on social media. so that even if it wasn’t the barbie or oppenheimer movie but, say, some other foreign independent arthouse film from the late ’90s, or of one of the local rock bands, the way people ‘aestheticize’ it and flatten it out on social media is … frustrating to say the least. and the fact that this is one of the surest ways to really get more people to listen or watch is just so bleak to look at right now when you want to share your art to people. in a sense, it’s difficult for those who want to create meaningful art and live off of it, when all you get is this celebrity-obsessed culture. it’s like the way you can earn sufficiently from it is if you made ‘creative content’ that’s as consumable and as palatable to profitability as possible, plus you have to have your ‘identity’ (branding) down too. and even if you decided to exit the mainstream and wanted to go independent, you will still need income anyway. art is not separable from the material world, no matter how abstract it is. the way so many creative minds and energies are being ruined right now by branding and market logic is just a grim reality we’re being faced with more and more, even outside the west. and we get this excess of shallow media, and it’s what’s everywhere right now, and it’s melting all our brains, no matter if we still engage with meaningful art whenever we can.

still!!! i do have to thank you for a very hopeful message re: creative work and genuine engagement to works of art. despite everything genuinely loving art really is what it’s all about! just have to keep looking for more hehe

[reflections-in-a-critical-eye]

Don't know if you ever felt like this but once you leave the online sphere for a while and then come back here... the way people talk about things on the internet feels so silly, like everyone takes the smallest things so seriously and everything is so performative, specially in the fanbase like wow ya'll can't be real speaking like this. 'Stanning spaces' are so odd, and the whole idea of stanning is so weird too, just feels very unhealthy to have this person you've never met have this much control over you

The fact that not too long ago I also let small things bother me like everything was a personal attack, the internet is a weird place and nowadays I'm just glad I've been able to sort of understand how damaging it is to see everyting through the lens of overwhelming virtual acceptance instead of actual self fulfillment

Yes, anon, I have felt this way and I'm trying to understand how we've ended up in this situation. Which is quite complex, but among the reasons behind it is this dependency we have on the online medium that is growing stronger by the day.

Lately there's talk again about the lack of third spaces and how we feel more and more alienated. It's even worse when the home and working spaces become one and we're trapped in one environment and our connection to the outside world is connected to more consumption than leisure or social activities. In turn, we spend time on our phone and I think that on one hand, we become desensitized (because our contact with other people is artificial, the lack of face to face conversation, we don't care about the person's feelings because we don't see the effects), and on the other hand, our echo chambers that we all inhabit to some degree, are able to turn every minor issue into a bigger problem. Of course, since we inhabit virtual spaces that have a singular focus. For example, the more time we spend in one fandom and it occupies a significant part of our free time during the day, the more we believe that any inconvenience is important. We exacerbate what would usually be brushed off. And it's even more dangerous because it's usually focused in fandoms surrounding real life people that end up being worshipped.

There's not a lot going on in people's lives sometimes. We've also been through a global pandemic (still ongoing actually) that contributed to our isolation. We consume products and content. It's a contemporary curse and as much as it has to do with individual choice, it is also generational, societal and a result of late stage capitalism.

[rollercoasterwords]

your fanfic doesn't need to be Content

ok so thanks to this lovely anonymous message i've been motivated to organize my thoughts on the increasingly common phenomenon of fanfic writers treating their own fics like Content for consumption, the way an influencer on social media might (all of this is in the context of the marauders fandom specifically -- no idea how or whether it might apply elsewhere)

what i mean by that is, essentially, instances of fanfic writers playing into the idea that fanfiction is a product created for the consumption of readers (and thereby the idea that fandom is a community that can be clearly divided between "producers"/writers and "consumers"/readers).

some examples i've seen: people "advertising" their fics on platforms like tiktok, sometimes even before they've started writing said fic ("hey guys i'm going to start writing a fic with x y z who's interested??"), or making posts asking outright "if i wrote a fic with x y z would people read it??" i've also seen people share concerns that if they write a certain thing they want to write (i.e, heavy smut, heavy angst, etc) then it will make their fic less "accessible" to a broader audience ("i want everyone to be able to enjoy my fics!")

another recent example that comes to mind is the "jegulus strike." while i'm sure it was largely well-intentioned, a strike is a form of protest tied inextricably to a consumer economy, and positioning writers as laborers who are standing in opposition to readers demanding that labor reinforces the framework of a consumer economy in which fanfiction is a product for consumption.

something i want to make clear here--i'm not saying that any of these behaviors are like....Moral Failings deserving of Ridicule. i think we are all very much conditioned by late-stage capitalism + algorithmic social media to view everything, even our hobbies, within the framework of a consumer economy. this is just me observing some of the ways i see that mindset creeping into fandom spaces.

like. i think there's this unspoken assumption that art is only worthwhile if it has an audience; that creative pursuits only matter if you can profit from them. if people are applying this mindset to fanfiction, then it makes sense to see this impulse to advertise fics the way authors advertise their books on tiktok, or twitter, or whatever. it makes sense for writers to become preoccupied with audience perception, perhaps changing their stories to make them more palatable for a certain audience or even going into the writing process with the audience already in mind--an overhanging and ever-present anxiety, asking yourself "how will this be received?"

the problem is that fanfiction doesn't fit into this model. it has always been meant for a niche audience, never the mainstream, and it has always existed outside the profit economy. trying to turn fanfiction into broadly consumable content is antithetical to the medium itself, and, in all likelihood, will fail. the vast majority of fanfiction is never going to be read by hundreds of thousands of people. if you go into writing it with an audience as your end goal, you will likely be disappointed.

what makes fanfiction so wonderful and unique is that it is meant to be written, first and foremost, for the writer. fanfiction as a medium grew out of personal joy in creation, out of individuals who thought "I want to see this story for myself" and then wrote it. because fanfiction is specific, catered to individual tastes and niche audiences, it lends itself to a unique sort of community in which your work attracts other people with that same niche taste, making it easier to strike up a conversation or start a friendship by saying, "hey, i love this story you wrote for yourself! it just so happens to be the exact sort of thing i wanted to read."

so i guess at the end of the day, my question for other fic writers is: if nobody was ever going to read this, would you still want to write it?

and if the answer is no...i think that's something that calls for reflection! where is your motivation rooted? is it rooted in a desire to create, in the joy of creation? or is it rooted in a desire to be seen, to be validated? wanting to be seen and validated is entirely natural, and it is by no means a bad thing. oftentimes, both these impulses--creation and validation--will be part of the decision to write + post a fic. but if validation is your primary motivation, and if you have internalized the idea that validation means getting as many people as possible to look at the thing you're making and click a heart button, then you will probably end up disappointed. you will probably end up feeling like your writing isn't good enough, no matter how many people end up reading it--because no audience will ever be big enough to validate you if you aren't able to take pride in your creation independent of any metrics of consumption.

i'm not saying that you should never share your fics on social media. like i mentioned above, community is one of the best parts of fanfiction--but are you posting in search of community? or are you posting in search of an audience? i know the line can get blurry sometimes, but i do think those two things look different, and i do think it is productive to look inwards and ask what you are truly seeking when you throw your writing into the void of social media posts. and i think as writers it's important not to fall into the trap of acting like our fics are a product intended for audience consumption, because to do so contributes to the deterioration of a fandom culture that is separate from the profit economy. plus, i just think all of us would be happier if we started trying to actively unlearn the idea that art is only worthwhile if it manages to amass a huge audience.

[blissfullyecho]

this entire account is horrifying. self-rebranding? we're not fucking products. we are not the media we consume and the objects we have, though late stage capitalism wants to make you feel like that's the only impact on the world you can have. good luck on detoxing from this mindset.

thank you for getting this off your chest— i pray for your healing 🤍

[starlightshadowsworld]

Bendy and the dark revival part 3

Thonks and notes.

.

She was the fourth

👀

Something tells me this is about Audery? But... The fourth of what?

Better not be the fourth closet...

Listens to Jane Todd tape

So the fourth is Carly, a ghost girl Jane wants to join the Butcher gang.

That was rejected.

... Hmmm

.

So Nathan Arch, aka guy from Archgate productions bought the rights to Joey's characters.

He talks about Joey as an old friend but idk if its just cos of fnaf and Henry addressing William the same way.

But something doesn't seem right bout this.

.

Porter is interesting, I mean there's very few people nice down here.

I like how he just goes nope your name is Bobby now.

.. And he has ink magic 2.

Sure okay than.

I like him.

.

The power belongs to him

Apparently not just him.

.

Game needs to stop taunting me with Boris...

Boris plushi in the ink.

Boris cardboard cut out which is also bizarre cos it's usually bendy ones.

In the words of Susie Campbell's Alice Angel from the first game

"Give me back my Boris!"

.

Ohhh chain door.

This should be good.

They crawl

Okay than and there's a dead lost one? On the floor surrounded by ink.

And the ink demon is back.

Fun.

The deep abyss remembers you, Audery.

If the abyss is Wilson... Than tell him we're not here.

A child of the darkness.

Hmm that's werid cos everyone else is referred to as a child of the machine.

Just more and more hints that Audery is different to the others.

And remembers?

Has Audery been here before I wonder.

I mean Henry was stuck in a time loop so... Who knows.

.

Wandering ebat the difference between lost ones and searchers are... Other than one having legs and feet.

.

Your journey will end as you are consumed into my dark kingdom.

That's just late stage capitalism man, was already there in while working in a dark semi abandoned animation studio

Here you will find meaning in your pain.

That's what we call a paycheck.

And I doubt your giving one out.

Also.. Ink demon needs to clear his throat once in a while.

.

People saying I should watch Superhorrorbros videos on this rather than Mark's playthrough for lore.

And I will but it's nice seeing stuff for myself and making ideas and having thonks and than seeing it from someone else.

That and than I don't get to see Mark aggressively "wallopolise" lost ones with the wrench while screaming and cursing them with eternal damnation.

.

The sweat cannot be cleaned

I love the wall writings in this game but.... Ew.

Couldn't you go with idk blood or death or literally anything other than sweat.

.

We don't live forever.

When we're killed or finally pulled apart our diseased soils return to the ink to be reborn.

An unending cycle of torment.

But sometimes, something even worse can happen.

A soul can slip from the ink completely. It gets caught between worlds, unable to die or return.

They wail in the night. Drifting in shadow. The phantoms of the machine.

The ghosts.

So... You do live forever.

Liar.

Also this sounds like what happened to Henry.

Stuck in a loop of time unable to truly die and stuck in an endless cycle.

.

Werid how the ink demon doesn't have the ability to Flow like Audery and Porter do.

.

Ugh... Wilsons back.

Attention children of the machine. It's Wilson.

We know!

There have been lies that the Ink demon has been spotted in animation alley.

Pay no attention to these filthy rumours.

I destroyed the ink demon myself! Be died my hands do don't be afraid.

I legit forgot he said that.

He's a fucking liar.

I knew he was lying because obviously but wow.

If said demon kills him ima just turn the other way.

Didnt see it.

Your friend Wilson will protect you.

I'm more afraid of you than him frankly.

.

Without fear there's chaos

Wilson would love star wars with his whole with fear is order and with order there is no chaos and all that wallop.

.

Audery... Maybe don't punch through ink canisters.

Like I get it.

But you know could be glass or something. Hell there is a glass shattering sound.

Be careful.

.

Feels like Nathan is now going to the church of the ink machine.

Just like Joey before him.

.

And chapter 3 begins, the Eternal machine.

.

This is Wilson

Go away!

Anyone caught in the restricted areas will be taken immediately to the Pit.

Where a ballpit will send you to a Freddy Fazbear's pizzeria in the year 198-

... Wrong pit.

My bad.

So be a good egg.

Follow the rules.

.... Hmm nope.

.

Good to know the true enemy of Joey Drew studios is slow working lifts.

.

Audery gets in lift. Recalls in the 1st game how the lift crashed down and Susies Alice Angel stole Boris

...I have a bad feeling.

Unauthorised surface elevator in use. Manual lift ejection activated.

Knew it.

See lifts in this game... Not good.

Bad things in this game:

Lifts

And Wilson.

... And ink crabs now apparently.

Still better than Sea Bonnie's.

.

Audery finally gets the coffee she came for!

... Hold up its $15.

Jeez I knew Joey Drew studios went bankrupt and all that but... Who the fuck is paying that much for coffee.

Especially when it's called Compost Coffee.

... See this is scarier than the ink demon.

Late stage capitalism is the real enemy of this game.

.. And Wilson.

Fuck that guy.

... Actually don't.

[project-blog-for-college]

“Kawaii” Culture: The Omnipresence and Power of Cuteness

What is Kawaii?: Origin and history

When you hear the word “kawaii”, what do you think it means? Do you think of its common translation “cute”? Do you think of “sweetness” or “youth"? Does it matter what it means? Is “kawaii” as a concept worthy of more consideration?

The Japanese word “kawaii” is hard to describe in simple terms or synonyms. Kawaii first originated as the word “kawayushi” in the Taisho period, lasting until 1945 where it then became “kawayui"(Kinsella 221). The latter lasted until 1970 where it finally transitioned into the kawaii we know today(Kinsella 221-222). These words had two essential meanings: one being shy or embarrassed and two being pathetic, vulnerable, small, and lovable (Kinsella 221-222). Today’s concept of “kawaii” may seem more simplistic. To be kawaii is to be“cute”. A kind of childishness, innocence, and a rejection of adulthood. All of which is true, but as we continue further, kawaii may have more depth than at first glance. 

The Kawaii we know today got its start in the 70s with an underground youth movement that began with “cute handwriting craze and childish fashion” (Kinsella 222). This cute handwriting, while seemingly innocuous, was actually a form of handwriting that drove teachers crazy. Cute handwriting tended to be rounded with thin lines, laterally written, with cute doodles and English sprinkled in (Kinsella 222). This cute handwriting was in opposition to the more traditional and solemn style that was taught and expected, becoming one piece of the growing rebellion against tradition and conformity wrapped up in a cute package.

However, the rebellion was not to last underground as businesses quickly caught onto the potential market of youth. It was here in the 70s that consumer culture truly set the stage for kawaii as cute products began to saturate the market. One of the biggest corporate success stories is probably Sanrio, who started out selling cute stationery before branching out into a wide variety of merchandise (Kinsella 226). This eventually led to the staple of Sanrio: their mascots. While they have many, Hello Kitty and Tuxedo Sam are the most well known, the former of which has probably become nearly synonymous with “kawaii”. Most women as a child, regardless of whether they were into cute things or not, remember having or knowing someone who had at least one outfit or accessory with the image of Hello Kitty.

Aside from stationery, plushies, and personal items tied to mascots however, “kawaii” is also very much a kind of fashion style. In the 70s, it was all about pastels and light colors, frills, fluff, and lace (Kinsella 229). The late 80s saw a shift to a more androgynous style, a kind of “tomboy sweetness” that saw a rise in more male participation (Kinsella 229-230, 243).

Today’s kawaii fashion has developed several “subcultures” of kawaii. For example:

Lolita

And Yami Kawaii. Can you think of any more?

Kawaii came into being spontaneously through the rebellious hearts of late 1960s and 1970s Japan’s youth before being capitalized by businesses eager for a new market. However, the late 80s and early 90s actually saw a decline of interest (Sato 40). While there did seem to be more inclusivity and there was interest, it seemed to have fallen out of favor with the trends and the industry started to stagnate (Sato 40). It wasn’t until the economic bubble burst of the 90s that companies made a mad scramble to return to “kawaii” merchandise hoping to save their profits both nationally and abroad (Sato 40). The fervor for cute things hasn’t died out since.

Contemporary Kawaii

The Marketability of Kawaii

When you hear the word “kawaii”, what do you think of? Is the first thing that pops into your head a general concept? Is it a particular array of colors? Or is it more tangible such as a piece of clothing? A stationery item? Maybe a fictional character or mascot? For example, the aforementioned Hello Kitty and Tuxedo Sam? Even Pokemon could be considered “kawaii”!

Whatever you think of, I guarantee you can buy it. Kawaii comes in every consumer product available whether that is paraphernalia, stationery, fashion, household appliances, or even houses and apartments (Kinsella 226-228). The increasing disposable income of youth and women meant that the market was ripe with potential customers (Kinsella 245). Furthermore, “kawaii” seemed to encourage the pursuit of pleasure, and due to societal constraints, it was impossible to be cute all the time which often meant that “kawaii” often took the form of products (Kinsella 245). Kawaii, far from discouraging like other contemporary youth movements, actively condoned materialism and displays of wealth and made cute accessible almost exclusively through consumption (Kinsella 245-246). 

And consume they did. Take a look at the economic power of Hello Kitty’s cuteness for example. In 1990, Sanrio sold around 200 billion yen worth of products and an estimated 10 trillion yen turnover nationwide (Kinsella 226). And in 2002, Sanrio recorded a $96 million profit for North and South America (Sato 38). The power of Hello Kitty is so powerful that in 2008, Sanrio opened a luxury store in New York City that replaced their original line of plushies and stationery with “designer fashions, diamond-encrusted watches, and finely crafted luggage —with prices to match— all bearing the characteristic Hello Kitty logo… Many items… [sold] out quickly to Japanese, American, and European buyers, in spite of the global recession” (Yano 682). 

There’s plenty more examples too.  In 2012, a news story remarked that the licensed character industry, or mascots, was worth 30 billions dollars a year (AFP). And a “kawaii” baking goods website called Cotta recorded a record profit of $81 million in revenue as of 2021 (Forbes). Clearly, there is plenty of money to be made in the industry, at home and abroad. Christine R. Yano calls this “widespread distribution and consumption of Japanese cute goods and aesthetics to other parts of the industrial world” “pink-globalization” (Yano 682). A global industry of kawaii. 

But what makes something “kawaii”, and why is it such a honey trap for people’s wallets?

Let’s turn once again to Hello Kitty, this celebrity veteran of kawaii culture. What is it about this character that appeals to us? According to Sharon Kinsella, the key to a successful “kawaii” mascot was to be “small, soft, infantile… round, [without appendages or orifices], non-sexual, mute, insecure, helpless, or bewildered” (Kinsella 226). Take a look at this image of 1970s Hello Kitty. How well do you think she fits this concept? 

Amy T. Y Lai notes that “the round, hence childlike features of Hello Kitty make her a symbol of cuteness. In fact, save her ribbon that indicates that she is a ‘female,' there is not a single sign that betrays her real 'biological sex’ —this also makes her 'asexual.' Overall, her immaculate whiteness connotes an aura of incorruptible innocence” (Lai 244). To be cute was to be naturally childish, naive, and innocent (K 237). Something that’s still in all of us, though suppressed in adulthood, which is why we look to kawaii products and characters for relief (Kinsella 241). It allows us to take a “sentimental journey back into an idealized childhood” (Kinsella 241). 

According to Kinsella, however, kawaii wasn’t just childishness and innocence. What makes this character cute is also their disability and helplessness. “Cute things can’t talk, can’t walk, can’t in fact do anything at all for themselves… Cute fashion was all about becoming cute by infantilizing oneself, denying maturity and wisdom; people became popular in cute culture by their weakness, dependence, and inability rather than strengths and wisdom” (Kinsella 236-237). 

The popularity of kawaii mascots was thus relevant to one’s sense of power over the object, putting themselves in the position to pity the other and project their own feelings and desires onto them. Hello Kitty’s mouthless face for example, means that you can impart whatever feeling you want onto her. Lai notes that “Hello Kitty… has no essential meaning. Its meaning(s) ultimately depends on whatever its consumers are willing to bestow on it in the process of consumption” (Lai 249). 

However, this appearance of powerlessness didn’t necessarily translate to an actual lack of power. In fact, as we will learn, there can be power found in the performance of innocence.

The Political Power of Kawaii

Kawaii culture did not start out as something to be consumed, although its identity is now largely tied up with consumption. Kawaii did, however, start off as something political. Remember that “kawaii” originally started as a youth rebellion, a way for youth to defy expectations to “grow-up” and contribute to a strict and conforming society. While it may be tempting to brush off an ultimately harmless act of civil disobedience, it is still a political act, especially when the original core of kawaii was to question and critique Japanese social norms and order. A critique of the country and its values itself. 

No better can you see this than by looking at how men and women utilized kawaii for exploring their own masculinity and femininity. According to Kinsella, cute culture has mainly been for women, and while men were also there, they were usually relegated to the background (Kinsella 243). It wasn’t until the 80s when the style became more androgynous and “asexually infantile” that men became more noticeable (Kinsella 243). Apparently there is a greater freedom for young, unmarried women because their oppression and exclusion has precluded them from active social roles, circumstances the men didn’t have (Kinsella 244). Cute culture was thus a way for men to escape social pressures and expectations (Kinsella 244). Meanwhile, women used cuteness to try and remain young and unmarried as married adult life presented a reality more oppressive than that of a male office worker (Kinsella 244). 

For women, this is best exemplified in 1980s burikko idols, burikko meaning those who acted almost unbearably cutesy, denying social responsibility and maturity (Sato 39). “The popular term shōjo, [or] “females between puberty and marriage”” also reflects this refusal to join adulthood” (Sato 39). For men though, Sato remarks that: 

“Contemporary youth in an economic recession [seemed] more skeptical about the concept of masculinity measured against work and marriage. Popular culture closely mirrors men’s reluctance to “become a man” through the growing popularity of effeminate men in the mass media… contemporary men seem to be reinventing the alternative culture that was once vigorously explored by the most “unproductive” population, i.e., women and children. Cuteness also has become a key for men who are exploring unconventional gender models that exist across paradigms of masculinity and femininity” (Sato 40-41). 

In summary, kawaii culture was a way for both men and women to deny and revolt against social pressures and expectations. For men, it had the added bonus of allowing them to explore their own gender and sexuality. Unlike more confrontational groups, kawaii made any backlashes the equivalent to punching cotton. People used its passive and “inferior” position to strategically create space in society for themselves to breathe. I think Sato states it best when they say that “the current trend, seen in the symbiosis of cuteness and aggressiveness, further complicates kawaii as an icon of defiance and resistance of the oppressed groups to traditional gender norms and procreative roles. Cuteness today is a means for expressing identity from the margin of society where powerlessness can lead into subversion” (Sato 41). 

But just as companies were quick to spot the potential market and profits and jumped on board, so were businesses and governments to jump in when they saw the potential persuasive and diplomatic power. 

Popularized by Joseph Nye, “soft power” is “the ability to indirectly influence behavior or interests through cultural or ideological means” (Yano 683). This can mean a government at any level using soft power to persuade their citizens to comply with certain guidelines or encourage them to take part in a campaign. Abroad, this can mean changing the image other nations have of your own and influencing the decisions they make based on this assumption. 

Luigi Zeni writes an interesting article about the use of the popular and kawaii Pokemon “Slowpoke” for a publicity stunt for the prefecture. On April 1st, Slowpoke (also known as Yandon), was named the new governor and statements were made that the Kagawa prefecture would be renamed after the cute mascot (Zeni). Although this was obviously a prank, there’s much to be said about the political use of mascots. For slowpoke, the prefecture used him as an advertisement for the commercial sector, encouraging tourists to try out specialties and discover unique manhole coverings (Zeni). On the political side, Slowpoke was often used in political campaigns and events as a disarming tool to create a pleasant and pliant atmosphere (Zeni). Looking at it through a more critical lens, the use of kawaii in politics can be incredibly manipulative, two-faced, and even almost dystopian. Zeni summarizes this with the quote:

“It is, thus, part of the political strategy of the prefecture to appear as a cute, harmless government in the eyes of its citizens and to soften the serious and resolute approach usually taken when dealing with political matters. In this regard, the presence of kawaii is strategically enacted by political and commercial bodies in order to reduce the distance between corporations and clients and to present politicians as non-threatening and likable. Instead of confronting and arguing, the instrumental and profitable presence of such cute mascots in a political environment transforms political authority into a fetish of consumption while entertaining the masses and dispelling negative associations” (Zeni).

Mascots for politicians and political groups were bad enough. But it can get even worse – there’s even mascots for police stations and even prisons! Pipo-kun is a well-known mascot for the Tokyo police department, one of 47 other mascots, one for each prefecture department. Each has their own unique design although they remain cute in every instance. The same goes for mascots that represent Japan’s prisons and juvenile detention centers. The Katakkuri-chan mascot, a warden with a giant purple flower for hair, represents the Ashikawa prison in the hopes of softening the grim image of the facility (and perhaps have you look the other way from their rep of treating their inmates inhumanely).

Clearly, the Japanese government has found much use in softening their image for their citizens. But what about abroad? “Soft power” utilizes the phenomenon of “cultural diffusion”, which is the dissemination of one culture’s practices, beliefs, and items to another, incidentally or deliberately. We already discussed the power of pink globalization to reach audiences across the globe, so it’s not hard to imagine how much of the ideology of kawaii culture has influenced its patrons. 

But regardless of how kawaii has reached individuals, how much power can it actually wield at an international level? The answer is quite a lot actually. The image of Japan globally after World War Ⅱ was unpleasant to put it lightly. The image of greedy, dishonorable, cruel war-mongers  made for bad business and bad diplomacy. It’s hard to recover an economy or establish beneficial relations with other countries when the other is constantly on guard, showing reluctance to trust or even interact with you. That’s why the use of kawaii as a form of soft power was a fairly genius stroke of luck.

That’s not to say that the Japanese government was trying to cover anything up. They didn’t really need to. Just look at the case where the United States forgave Japan for their war crimes against U.S pow in return for getting the results of their horrific experiments. Kawaii wasn’t used for some cover-up and some people might theorize. That’s just a conspiracy theory. However, the political application of kawaii is real. 

Kawaii allows Japan to appear disarming and harmless. There’s less resistance to be had if there doesn’t appear to be a threat. “In this regard, Japanese cute—including its tease of youth and femininity—has become part of official policy in creating a new face that beckons the overseas customer” (Yano 685). Tran also writes, 

“Japan has… managed to rebrand itself as a different kind of global power through the rigorous export of kawaii goods from the 1960s onward. Koichi Iwabuchi identifies “cultural deodorization” as Japan’s self-conscious attempt to evacuate any overt markers of racial otherness/foreignness from cultural products in order to gain entry into desirable consumer markets. The culturally deodorized product serves as the embodiment of the country of origin in its best, least offensive form, and for Japan that form is kawaii—the antithesis of its World War II image as an imperial aggressor” (Tran 21). 

This concept of selling an image goes not just for the packaging of goods to foreign countries, however, but also for the selling of ideas and diplomacy in political settings. Japan sells not just products but a persona. The prevalent impression of Japan as a land of high-tech and cuteness is reproduced again and again through photos of young women in cute clothes wearing cute accessories with cute stationery in cute rooms filled with posters and figurines of cute mascots and anime girls. With this kind of image, people tend to grow more positive opinions and are more likely to be persuaded. In much the same way as mascots are used to soften images of government and civil workers, and influence their citizens, similar tactics are used on diplomats and world news. 

In summary, kawaii in politics uses soft power, specifically their “brand image”, to negotiate their place on the global hierarchy and in the global markets. While using kawaii as a political tactic ensures that Japan will be inherently subordinate to some, it’s a trade off for better allies and trade agreements that wouldn’t exist had their reputation not been improved. 

Nevertheless, while kawaii in politics has its benefits, there are still many who critique this kind of political strategy. There are also many who critique it as a culture in itself. What do you think? Can you think of any critiques people may have about “kawaii” as either a culture or as a political tool?

Critiques of “Kawaii”

We’ll start with critiques of  Japan's use of “soft power” and kawaii as a political tool. I already let it slip a bit in the earlier section, but I believe other people may agree that the use of kawaii as a way to let people’s guard down for persuasion or to belatedly boost a positive image of a prison that has been criticized for cruelty is not only deceptive but a bit dystopian. It’s something you would expect to see in a horror-action game as some kind of social commentary. It’s like putting a cute mascot band-aid on a cracked wall about to fall apart. It’s a mask. 

Other people have problems with Japan’s image as kawaii as something that is infantilizing and ruins respect for the country. “There [was] concern that the new cultural capital in youth-oriented, feminized cuteness trivializes Japan as infantile and superficial” (Yano 684). While kawaii politics may have given Japan a leg up in certain circumstances, it had the downside of making it hard for other countries to take them seriously. Tran’s article is actually something of a critique of kawaii culture, noting that: 

“The success of kawaii goods in the United States and elsewhere hinges on the way kawaii packages racial otherness/foreignness in a nonthreatening manner. In taking seriously the soft power of kawaii, this essay does not endorse cute consumerism but rather calls attention to how kawaii renders visible radically uneven power relations and invites the productive reimagining of power within and through conditions of heightened constraint, dependency, and vulnerability” (Tran 21-22). 

Remember Japan’s position after World War Ⅱ. They had suffered heavy losses in the war, and had been occupied by American forces. They were stripped of their right to keep an army and the fate of their country’s future rested largely on the decisions of foreigners. It was emasculating. To Tran “The rapid, unprecedented expansion of kawaii cultural industries in Japan after World War II points to kawaii’s consolidation as an aesthetic-affective response to the nation’s unconditional surrender. As an aesthetic of smallness, weakness, and helplessness, kawaii registers the trauma of the atomic bombing and Japan’s diminished sense of itself as a military power” (Tran 21).

In this argument, kawaii isn’t some master strategy, but a manifestation of their loss of status and position. Of them becoming subordinate to the whims and favors of others.

Aside from global politics however, critics also had something to say about the effects of kawaii culture on Japan’s society. Some of these critiques are from genuine concern, while others seem to be looking for a scapegoat. Nevertheless, they all point to a general discomfort and unease about the position of Japan as a passive and feminized identity.

In the 70s and 80s, critiques were a bit different than what they are today. This was a time of relative passivity from the youth, quite different from the revolts and student protests of the 60s (Kinsella 246). However, this passive stance was what angered them, believing they were shirking responsibility and duties to society and their traditional roles of company man and housewife (Kinsella 246-247). They were afraid of the youth seeking pleasure through consumption than of moral satisfaction from fulfilling their social obligations. Furthermore, they considered “cuties” to be “infantile”, “effeminate”, and “tasteless”, often considering “infantile” interchangeable with “feminine” (Kinsella 248). This was part of a trend of blaming women for the feminization of society, making them scapegoats for economic, political, and personal problems (Kinsella 249). 

Men were encouraged to see (manipulative, choosy, cute) women at fault for their woes as they were responsible for their humiliation by making unreasonable demands and using them for money and favors (Kinsella 249). Of course this was just a perception. The first half of the 80s saw more women in the workplace than ever before but this was also seen as selfish as it was taking away jobs from men and denying them marriage partners (Kinsella 249). Cute was thus inherently selfish as it rejected social obligations.

Today’s critics are a little less misogynistic (although these complaints haven’t disappeared). Many of them, I actually agree with. There’s been more concern with materialism and consumption, and there’s also been a concern about the infantilization of women. The latter specifically is concerned with women being taken less seriously even in professional situations as they are placed on the same level as children. There are also legitimate concerns about lolicons and the fetishization of youth. While kawaii is about being child-like and innocent, it isn’t devoid of sexuality. And while this isn’t necessarily bad in itself, there are those who have taken advantage of kawaii culture to justify their desires for actual children. 

Suffice to say, there is a mixture of genuine worry about the effects of kawaii culture and of barely-masked prejudice and discrimination. But how are we to deal with these concerns? How do you think these fears should be abated?

Conclusion

Now that you’ve come to the end, what do you think kawaii looks like? Is it a dream of childlike innocence, or is it a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Does kawaii deserve any of its reputations? Does it have any power? And do you think any of it matters?

Although we’ve covered how kawaii came to be, what kind of ideologies it has, and the appearances it takes in economics and politics, there are still two questions that I want you to think about.

Does “kawaii” have any meaning? And does it have a future?

Sources

AFP English. “Japan's pursuit of cute spawns $30 billion industry.” AFP Video, 1:39.

Katayama, Akiko. “‘Kawaii’ Cuteness Made Niche Baking Goods Website An $81 Million Business.” Last modified January 28, 2022.

Kinsella, Sharon. “Cuties in Japan.” In Women, Media and Consumption in Japan, edited by Lise Skov and Brian Moeran, 220-254. London: Routledge, 1995. PDF.

Lai, Amy T.Y. “CHAPTER FIFTEEN: Consuming ‘Hello Kitty’: Tween Icon, Sexy Cute, and the Changing Meaning of ‘Girlhood.’” Counterpoints 245 (2005): 242–56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42978703.

Tran, Sharon. “Kawaii Asian Girls Save the Day! Animating a Minor Politics of Care.” MELUS 43, no. 3 (2018): 19–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26566151.

Sato, Kumiko. “From Hello Kitty To Cod Roe Kewpie: A Postwar Cultural History of Cuteness in Japan.” Education About Asia 14, no. 2 (2009): 38-42. https://www.asianstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/from-hello-kitty-to-cod-roe-kewpie-a-postwar-cultural-history-of-cuteness-in-japanA.pdf

Yano, Christine R. “Wink on Pink: Interpreting Japanese Cute as It Grabs the Global Headlines.” The Journal of Asian Studies 68, no. 3 (2009): 681–88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20619791.

Zeni, Luigi. “Social and Political Use of ‘Kawaii’: The Case of Yadon and the Kagawa Prefecture.” Wasshoi!. Wasshoi! Magazine. Accessed May 1, 2023. https://www.wasshoimagazine.org/blog/curiosities-of-the-japanese-culture/social-and-political-use-of-kawaii-the-case-of-yadon-and-the-kagawa-prefecture.

[titleknown]

Why is the response to any critique of a kids show "just watch adult shows 4head". Kids deserve good and diverse (story-wise, not just race/gender) media that's actually been thought through. If I say that Steven Universe/Gravity Falls/whatever else has some issues it's not because those are the only shows I've ever watched, it's because I think that maybe we should strive to make good TV that's aimed at all ages.

[In response to this post]

Well, my view of the long and short of it on a macro level is that they're mad at the stagnation of taste under late capitalism, especially if they're into nitche stuff that's starved for funding and social capital while other peoples' stuff has a thriving fandom/scene, and think that being mean on the internet can change it.

Like, while I often chide @afloweroutofstone for engaging in this behavior, an old article of his ironically made the excellent point that the reason so much of our politics centers around meaningless culture war shit that doesn't materially change anything is because we feel so disconnected from the process of influencing our society via political action due to neoliberalism and a gridlocked government with systems designed to basically say No to doing anything good that we feel like all we can do is this ineffectual individualistic pressuring of others via market action.

And, while he was talking about on a larger scale, I think this also applies to the micro scale of what art gets to exist/be produced too.

Like, in the US government arts funding (especially for the sorts of stuff people on here like) is basically dead, the monetary base for indie work online shrunk a lot when the '08 crash basically made the working class broke, and most the most consistent means of funding art isa small monopoly of mercenarial nightmare-megacorps.

People who like things that're nitche and drowned out by the things the megacorps are pushing feel at the mercy of the market and its tastes, with no real workable avenue for changing society in a way that their art is allowed to exist and thrive, or even their ways of enjoying art due to the way social cycles influence fan cultures and how a lot of people have been burned by that (But that's for its own post).

Either way, they feel as if there's no option except that ineffective "change consumer demand to change what megacorps do" mindset, even though it's clear from basic observation that doesn't work for a sour shit.

From my observation, it seems like they feel like their only option is to try and drag culture back to an earlier stage, before the "nerds" "ruined it" by infantilizing it by making their vapid art considered socially acceptable, or so the narrative goes, and want to do this by bullying hard enough they're gone from public life or have modified their behaviors to be "acceptable," IE creating the sort of world they want to live in.

That isn't going to work to change shit, but it sure is going to make a lot of people double down on their bad habits or else feel even more isolated and alone, but as I have observed, people prefer bad solutions to no solutions.

But so far nobody's doing shit at scale to remedy the iactual core problem, IE "We as audience/creators feel as if we have no control over the material factors behind the creation of art in our society," or even stating it as a problem of that, and that sucks!

IDK, I'm rambling at this point, but... in all my observation it really does seem like a mean, sad attempt to exert some tiny amount of control over the means of artistic production via the logics of consumer activism in this hellworld...