EelBolshevikism 17m ago • 100%
not irrelevant back then. she's talking about TERF writer weirdos not actually non-binary people just existing
EelBolshevikism 17m ago • 100%
I have, on very rare occasions, seen the "being binary trans reinforces the oppressive forces of the gender binary" take before,
I've seen it constantly from TERF's, or it's sister, "putting on makeup is misogynistic".
EelBolshevikism 18m ago • 100%
all non-assigned-at-birth genders are subversive, right? Wasn't that the point of the section of the GAM about trans people being revolutionary even if they are binary-identified?
yeah, but Serano has big issue with people doing "subversion olympics" within movements. Think of the kind of weird "bi people should choose a side, what posers" kinds of takes that still exist unfortunately
EelBolshevikism 22m ago • 100%
thank you for responding and clarifying your thoughts
edit: and i just want to add that IMO the point of this post was to critique a specific thing in a book that is considered a pillar of the community and make it clear that it is not perfect, and in fact, may be losing relevance in specific ways and be supplanted by newer material. i just want to say i appreciate the blog thing, but no one should have to read a blog post for an academic work before they can criticize the work
i understand that, but that is not what i got from it. I got the impression that many people genuinely thought Julia Serano was enbyphobic, and without the context of the time I don't blame them. But it's still extremely sad to see people think of her as such. I agree it is not perfect and needs to be updated, but implying she was exclusionary or not sympathetic to non-binary people is practically revisionist, even though it does come from a good-faith place here. It is good that this thread was made though so that the outdated discourse could be pointed out and the clarifications made.
EelBolshevikism 40m ago • 100%
some other quotes from her blog
There is nothing inherently wrong with celebrating and praising supposedly “subversive” and “transgressive” expressions of gender and sexuality (although the assumption that such activities undermine the gender binary, or patriarchy, or what have you, seem rather dubious to me for reasons that I discuss throughout the second half of Excluded).
Subversivism doesn’t merely target the heterosexual gender-conforming majority. In Excluded, I discuss how transsexuals (see Chapter 12), femmes (see Chapter 6), and bisexuals (see Chapter 9), in addition to other gender and sexual minorities, regularly face accusations of “reinforcing patriarchy/heteronormativity/the gender binary,” or of “not being queer/feminist enough” because of their appearance, dress, or partner preference. Indeed, subversivism is a common tactic that is used to marginalize and exclude these groups (and others) within these movements.
she is talking about the underlying phenomenons that lead to things like biphobia, NOT the identities themselves that are supposed to be "better" than the target of IE biphobia. The thing she is criticizing is the same undercurrent of thought that leads to weird exclusivist terminally online arguments about the term "bisexual" being transphobic and "pansexual" being more inclusive etc. I also do not believe she has issue with celebrating or loving one's identity as being subversive by itself; She has issue with it being considered more subversive. Otherwise she would oppose queer pride in general which is blatantly not an opinion she holds.
In Excluded, I make the case that there are myriad double standards—some which are pervasive, and others which are more temporary or fleeting; some of which exist in mainstream society, and others which exist in specific settings or subcultures; some of which we are aware of, and others which we are oblivious to. And I make the case that, as activists, we should work to challenge all double standards, rather than ignoring some and reversing others.
Thus, while subversivism may not be prevalent in mainstream society, we should be concerned by it and we should work to eliminate it.
So subversivism doesn’t function in the same way that we are used to thinking about “isms,” as it does not target a specific group of people. Rather, subversivism is perhaps better thought of as a mindset that often arises within activist movements, and which provides a convenient excuse for either perpetuating hierarchies that already exist within society, or to create newfangled hierarchies within that specific movement. Given this, I thought that it would be more fruitful to highlight the arbitrary nature of these subversivist hierarchies more generally—I do this in multiple chapters of Excluded, especially Chapter 12, ‘The Perversion of “The Personal Is Political”’ and Chapter 16, “Fixed Versus Holistic Perspectives.”
Her overall take is that there is that subversive communities are first and foremost communities, and that while thought patterns like "subversivism" aren't systemic issues like other "isms", and in fact in my opinion the term may be misleading, it still leads to significant harm both in theory and community to have arbitrary hierarchies like this build within movements, and that's it's bad to do oppression olympics
I have encountered this on many occasions within BMNOPPQ communities, were some people prefer to call themselves pansexual, or multisexual, or polysexual, rather than bisexual. And this is totally fine—people are free to self-identify however they like. However, sometimes people will claim that they have chosen their preferred label because it is supposedly more liberatory or inclusive than bisexual. This latter case is an example of word-sabotage, because now people who identify as bisexual and who use that term in an inclusive manner (such as me) are now presumed to be conservative and exclusionary.
She believes the current "born in the wrong body" dominant narrative is bad and thinks transsexuality, as she puts it, is the dominant narrative of the present day among cis people. She does not seem to like this!
I completely disagree with you about the "transsexual narrative has all but been wiped from the map by the rest of the umbrella we were drug under". Honestly, that is the only narrative that most people in the cis mainstream are familiar with, even though it doesn't fit all gender variant people, or even all transsexuals.
I would not expect someone who thought of non-binary people as being some sort of "evil woke reverse-binarist oppressors" to say anything remotely like this.
Her take is that, instead of trying to "market" our identities as subversive or inherently better than others, we should fight for queerness so we can be comfortable in our identity.
I believe this is fundamentally compatible with the GAS manifesto. It isn't that every time someone does something more and newly subversive it breaks the binary more, it's that the continued existence of identities that don't fit into it and refuse to become assimilated slowly erodes it. Or more precisely, the systemic power of queer people and women challenges gender, not individual identity politics. (Except for the part where you challenge gender to be yourself in the first place, but I mean challenge on a systemic level not like a individual/local level). Rather than pressuring people into being something they're not to try and break gender, we should empower those who are naturally things that break gender so they can do it themselves. That might seem like "praising subversive identities" but I think there's a difference between building an in-community hierarchy and lifting an entire community up to challenge the norm.
EelBolshevikism 59m ago • 100%
This really does seem like a type of person Serano made up, like this is joke material for most people. I somehow doubt anyone seriously thinks that binary genders are inferior, and even if they do Serano should shut the fuck up. Your stupid binary genders have legal recognition, for fucks sake.
teleport to 20 years ago and talk to terfs for an hour and then come back to me on that
EelBolshevikism 1h ago • 100%
I can speak for myself quite easily. I do not feel "gender anxiety" at people who identify strongly as either binary female or binary male. Unless the definition of "gender anxiety" includes being upset to be compared to a transphobe for not "picking a side."
yeah... your takes are completely correct. that's why, she's not, like, talking about you 
EelBolshevikism 1h ago • 100%
the fact this is silly to think is why she wrote the paragraphs being posted everywhere
EelBolshevikism 1h ago • 100%
it's not that bad, it's just phrased miserably and leads to horrible takes if followed as advice out of context of the period
i like julia serano a lot and i will defend her to my last breath. she's one of the few writers who's validated my emotions and it's infuriating seeing people read that she's trying to make some sort of terminally online enbyphobic take when she never would have wanted it to be read that way. ugh. i know it's technically her fault but it makes me sad
it's a good sign at least, it means the issues she's talking about in this case basically don't exist anymore lol. because everyone here is criticizing it correctly if it was made in present day without the context of weird terf writers.
EelBolshevikism 1h ago • 100%
i don't think she ever uses this term again. julia serano has a bad habit of making fairly good points with really cringe presentation to dunk on some people and then never reusing it because she doesn't actually seem to internalize the narrative she made to make the point.
EelBolshevikism 1h ago • 100%
i agree with this completely including the fact it should be changed. her foreword isn't enough and without the context it's really bad, which means it's really bad when read as theory applicable to current times
EelBolshevikism 1h ago • 100%
the "and" is really important there. she doesn't have anything against people who do gender-fucking and never has, every other take she has had indicates the opposite. It's also important that she's specifying people who do it specifically (and by implication, only) to "own the binaroids". She's against the idea of gender-fucking in opposition of one's own genuine desires and identity to seem "subversive", rather than doing it because you want to for other reasons/intrinsic benefits (and possibly also because you want to fuck the gender binary, I see nothing wrong with that). I don't really think any non-binary people that exist nowadays are like that. It was probably just weird non-binary appropriating TERFs during her time that did that stuff, too.
cannot see that they have just created a new gender binary, one in which subversive genders are “good” and conservative genders are “bad.”
i don't see your issue with this other than the wording, i mean this is a dumb "gotcha" sort of way to put it but the sentiment is genuinely correct. People trying to portray "binary-aligned" genders as objectively Less Good than "subversive genders" and making a hierarchy out of it are weird, and are doing a kind of vulgar anti-binarism. Instead of trying to remove the forces and phobias preventing people from developing and understanding their own identities in ways that naturally subvert patriarchal norms, they try to shame people into having different identities and presentations than they actually want. You see this kind of thing in a very less fringe way in weird "wearing makeup is always self-enslavement actually" type takes from non-intersectional feminists.
EelBolshevikism 1h ago • 100%
one, that every possible worst-case assumption I could have made about this book is true and more,
no, most of this thread is made on an understandably worried reading of it, but her take around "binary-phobia" and shit is more of bad wording than actually incorrect. the attitude she is describing is very real. (edit... back then. Anyone with it these days is a chronic grass deficient)
EelBolshevikism 1h ago • 100%
it's a vey sophomoric attitude to have like how one might think bi people or poly people are better than mono or mono people in a fit of missing the trees for the forest.
it's that exact kind of attitude she's railing against.
EelBolshevikism 1h ago • 100%
So more pointedly, why Serano was so very miffed about just such an encounter that she felt it right to enshrine her being mad in a book? She doesn't seem to be in your position.
we live in a period where they got dunked on by people like Serano herself and shoved to irrelevancy. It was NOT always a fringe position
edit: it's actually not even a fringe position nowadays, it's just that the people who held it don't identify as non-binary at all. I don't even know if they did back then. It's all just TERFs trying to mis-appropriate queer theory all the way down
EelBolshevikism 1h ago • 100%
this was made at a time period when people were unironically not allowing trans women who didn't purposely present or identify as nonbinary to attend women's festivals, while simultaneously praising drag queens for being femme but not identifying as such.
She is more or less insinuating that non-binary people are befuddled supremacists who cannot stand... adherence to the gender binary. Cool.
no, she is insinuating the aforementioned people who exclude trans women from women's festivals and their ilk are befuddled supremacists. I have never seen a non-binary person in the year of our lord and savior Karl Marx 2024 do any of the things Julia Serano mentions here. She simply is not talking about any modern non-binary person in existence minus some weird fringe take havers who are the remnants of the people she IS talking about. And those fringe take havers are unlikely to actually identify as non-binary regardless (but instead merely only ever had these kinds of takes as a form of proto-TERFism).
she actually addresses a decent amount of this in her foreword, including clarifying that she does not like the gender binary and thinks of it as an oppressive institution, but queer theory was ass back then. I can't repeat enough how weird people were about the idea of trans women like, presenting femme. Evidence of this is all over her book and if I was in that situation I don't know if I or anyone else here would have takes that were any better.
mtf spectrum
ok i'm actually offended by the implication this is silly, you can be both non-binary and identify as mtf, you can be mtf and different-mtf than someone else who is mtf, there is absolutely an mtf spectrum and there is nothing wrong with mentioning as such
edit: read theory (Serano has a significant online presence, or at least did for a while, and this is a criticism she was actually able to address/clarify/remand about her book)
edit 2: yes ive been replying to everyone in this thread (anxious). if i turn out to be completely wrong somehow pls dont ban me. i log off now good night
edit 3: yes i agree it should be changed. and it is sad for what's seen as such an important book to have such outdated terminology (and some incorrect takes, too). her usage of male/female terminology really sucks as well. i just don't think she's idelogically against non-binary people, even implicitly. shes just kind of dumb sometimes and says things weirdly
EelBolshevikism 3h ago • 100%
neurotypical people are weird about sex and this is confirmed true by many sources
EelBolshevikism 3h ago • 100%
i think the fact everyone commenting here and mentioning their own experiences, was either hypersexual as a phase but isn't anymore or is just straight up ace, is interesting. let me tacitly give a counter-example by saying i am absolutely neither of those things but i am definitely an example of this (hint: i'm the first thing)
idk wtf the actual line is for hypersexual. all i can say is that people are fucking weird about sex and there's probably something about neurodivergent people that makes them less likely to care about the ambient weirdness and expectations put on how people express it
EelBolshevikism 3h ago • 100%
I think I must be on the hyper side but my rigorous self critique tries to drag me towards more asexuality
asexuality is an orientation not an amount of sex having
EelBolshevikism 1d ago • 100%
we have a weaker socialist block than the one right before Nazi Germany, I think
The only reason *not* to do so is the vanishingly rare chance that democrats turn a red state, which is basically the exact same argument they use to tell people to vote blue no matter who, but more compelling because it's not typical genocidal am*rican politicians they're voting for. What are they going to do? Tell you they want to vote for a war criminal on principle? The positive political pressure of having a somewhat popular socialist party far outweighs the small chance democrats could have won (and this is even from their perspective, that the democrats winning would fix everything somehow)
Government officials are publicly admitting they "knew about aliens but lied"? Techbros are jacking themselves to death about how aliens superior intelligence has let them trap us somehow? Apparently the government has new terminology for these space aliens that are supposed to exist? How much of this is real? Or is it mainly just bullshit?
title main
I've come to a realization, one which makes me angry that I didn't realize it sooner; Angry at g*mers , and myself . Because it turns out that "gitting gud" is an inherently ableist sentiment... sometimes. Before you generate the ultimate PPB takedown comment, let me share this story and explain some of my reasoning. I think even people who are pro-"git gud" will agree with me here. I find myself, shortly (ish) before posting this post, playing Terraria, again, for the first time in a while. I've progressed throughout almost the entirety of the game, with some overwhelming and tricky bosses that I ultimately learned to understand still despite their difficulty. Or so my copium was. In retrospect, I think I got lucky. Now, Moon Lord , the evil cryptobro brother of Cthulu. Final boss of the vanilla game. I had 1 mod installed but it was entirely irrelevant to this, a rare example of a mod that's actually balanced and I encouraged me to mostly use just vanilla gear. I fight him, equipped with best in class equipment, a prepped arena with heart lanterns, a heart statue, campfires... And, one... two... three... four... six?!? times I tried, all without even properly reaching his second phase. I sort of went through the stages of grief here, propelled by an unyielding resolve to "git gud" and power through, all until the final sixth fight, where my resolve shatters and I furiously begin searching online for why this boss is so much absurdly harder than I remember when I have defeated him before, and whether others also felt so overwhelmed and at the mercy of luck while fighting him. I find others complaining, not about his difficulty, but about the form that difficulty takes. The sheer projectile spam, the overwhelming saturation of different attack patterns and laser beams and summoned enemies all at once. And of course, I find the typical GitGud statements, but I do my best to ignore them. I think about my issues... the overload of...  oh it's the autism. And it all comes falling down. It's taken me YEARS to realize that I have such a frustrating time in so many games, not because I suck at the game, not because I've chosen bad gear, not even because the games even necessarily all that difficult... But because it was built for someone with a greater ability to digest and dispose of sensory information than me. It was made for a fully abled neurotypical audience without any sensory processing issues, and I've been acting as if I am that audience despite knowing full well I'm not, that my sensory bandwidth is absurdly tiny compared to your average person. So it all makes sense why I suck. But why didn't I realize sooner? Because of "git gud" culture. No, not the phrase, though it is misused extremely often. But the general assumption that any issue someone may have completing a game is inherently one of motivation or laziness when it comes to practicing a skill, or because of some trivial mistake in analysis (wrong equipment, wrong abilities chosen, wrong character types...), and in the process ignoring the very real ways that people can simply be cut out of a game that might seem very accessible to a layman. And I think this isn't merely rooted in ableism. I mean, it is rooted in ableism, but it's also sourced from a non-holistic view of video games, from a perspective that the actual physical and material state of the person playing is irrelevant to how and what they play. That, then, is the reason why "git gud" and other such statements often feel so hostile and out of place, and are often used in such ableist and inconsiderate ways. It's not because telling "git gud" to someone who is actually enjoying learning the game but feels discouraged to for whatever reason is wrong. It's because g*mere responding "git gud" to every post critical of their game treats reveals their actual belief: That it is impossible for someone to struggle with a game for any reason other than their own inherent, often characterized as moral, failings. So now I know. I need to stop trying to force myself to play games that simply aren't... designed for me. It sucks, but it makes a lot of sense, and I doubt any game company is going to be making games less overwhelming anytime in the future on my or anyone else's request- The legions of braying g*mer hogs demand that only they, the white cishet neurotypical men, can be allowed to actually enjoy the game. Is this all just cope? Idk. Maybe a little? But would that even be bad? Maybe, but given how g*mers generally are, I think my theory on their behavior has some merit.
Is there policy on intentional beer throwing at people? Edit: I thought it was funny because of how "epic badass" the OP was trying to come across, plus the absurd lengths the commenters went to defend obvious antisocial behavior. Remove your reddit brainworms! The joke is not someone wanting their girlfriend to not be harassed, the joke is Reddit Honestly screw it, I don't think the OP is really funny anymore, either. They might come across as silly due to being angry but who doesn't? Plus they're vegan, so, 
bullying, harassing, or even "criticizing" them is an entirely pointless endeavor that does nothing but make you feel superior to another person. having a "minimum standard" for random matchmaking is OK i guess, but not having that standard met is the developer's fault for not having proper matchmaking, not the random shitty player just trying to play the game. and it's a *game*. it fundamentally *does not matter* if someone is so bad you can't get your +0.2 second record or whatever. it does not matter if you can't win the difficulty you chose. everyone starts somewhere, and in games where different difficulties tend to be almost like entirely different games, this is even more true. if you want a game where you have an 100% chance of everyone involved being at the correct skill level you want, than don't play with explicitly random players. no one cares if you want to feel special because you can win more at some fictional game than other people. I respect skill, but if you think that's a reason to bully people than you should leave every game scene ever to save people from your presence if a player stumbles into something but doesn't understand it it's the developer's fault 90% of the time. if a player doesn't want to "git gud" it's the developer's fault 90% of the time. every single genuine criticism made about a game's difficulty is inherently valid. every game should have an easy mode. players should default to helping new players rather than dismissing them. learning a game by playing it is always more intuitive than using google or reading blog posts.
Before someone questions me, this is a phenomenon that has been documented. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2022/05/24/during-general-anaesthesia-1-in-10-people-may-be-conscious-follo.html https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/12/surgical-patients-may-be-feeling-painand-mostly-forgetting-it/547439/ https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190313-what-happens-when-anaesthesia-fails Forgive me if this is the wrong place to post; c/mutualaid feels like it would draw attention away from people with more urgent issues, and c/mentalhealth is very inactive and rarely anyone ever sees it.
redsails.org
Interesting article, but I don't know if I agree with it. The constant appeals to "rational homo economicus" also make me actively want to disagree with it because I fucking hate economics. In my opinion ads don't prey on our "rational decisions" (which aren't that rational if we're being collectively tricked into them...), but instead our memory, by getting it stuck in our head and thinking of it when we have to think of what brands to purchase. So it isn't association, it's just the result of repetition creating memory. Extra thoughts: I don't know if I agree with the whole concept that basically all oppression is rational or based on rational self interest. Certainly, a lot of it is, but a lot of it is also completely irrational too, and to imply it's somehow rational would be obscenely offensive to the targets of that prejudice. Are those who (internally, not performatively) experience disgust at seeing gay people "rational"? Are the knee-jerk ableist, lookist, shitty reactions many of us notice in our minds but fight off "rational"? I certainly hope I'm not alone in this... It seems to me that culture values are very malleable, though our brains by themselves might not be. And *by proxy* we can be manipulated into so-called "irrational" (though in all actuality so-called rational behavior *according to the social norms we internalized*) when we internalize these social norms over years of interaction and teaching. People aren't "brainwashed" into loving capitalism, then, but rather they simply grew up in a society that instills the values of "independence, freedom, and responsibility" in them, giving them goals that align with capital over time. Though this doesn't mean they're a lost cause- Cultural values are vague and malleable, so "freedom" can be redefined into basically anything, and even base values can change drastically with exposure to new ideas. I would not be surprised if it is effectively a combination of Pavlovian conditioning and the rational behavior this author seems to believe in. The act of conforming for fitting in and not being alone, eventually internalized as you convince yourself it's what you actually want to do.
scp-wiki.wikidot.com
https://old.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/1dttr0f/there_are_currently_some_issues_with_xbox_live/
Ever since a commit was made to EasyList, a conflict has begun between UBlock Origin contributers and numerous mod developers that use the Modrinth platform. This is because this commit blocked multiple sponsorship referral banners on mod pages, specifically on the Modrinth website. Modrinth themselves has come out against this change to the EasyList block list and due to UBlock Origin using it by default, this is primarily a conflict between UBlock Origin's main contributors and active mod developers on Modrinth. Mod developers complaints primarily are that the implementation was commonly breaking their mod pages, leading to important support links for players to be hidden, and that the change negatively affects them monetarily as independent developers. Some mod developers have begun automatically changing their referral links to prevent them from being blocked every time a commit attempts so. Mod developers' are concerned their livelihoods could be ruined by this EasyList change. UBlock Origin has retorted that the sponsorship affiliate links fit [the Easy List definition for an advertisement](https://easylist.to/2011/07/11/the-definition-of-advert-and-link-exchange-policy.html) and therefore they will not make an exception. This is likely because implementing any kind of acceptable ads policy is out of the question for them, as a similar policy is what led to the original UBlock from becoming sub-par and less usable, leading to the UBlock Origin fork. This primarily raises questions about how or why these mod developers are losing money. The presence of concern implies that their sponsors and affiliates are able to track each individual click or view for their referral links, a practice I am sure most would consider intrusive. We can only hope that this puts enough pressure on these companies and groups to remove tracking from their links.
Fuck this show. Yeah, it is technically enjoyable, the production's competent, the writing's coherent, and all the IP loyalist signifiers are there. And if you need someone to complain about how some aspect of those things fell short, you can find that anywhere on Reddit or YouTube movie "criticism" channels. Yes, this show has somehow managed to avoid the curse of incompetent production that some magic user cast on live action adaptations. Unfortunately the result is something way more horrific than any mess of mangled CGI you can laugh at with friends on a lazy afternoon. It is instead the eerily perfect, hollow shell of the original series possessed by the utter death drive of capitalism. Unlike other series, who often don't even have enough depth in the original for this to happen to them, The live action ATLA was somehow killed on a level far deeper than shitty production value or low sales. One could argue that it was killed the moment the merch factories started churning years ago, but that's out of the scope of this post. To watch the live action ATLA is to literally witness the recuperation of actual writing and art. The ever-present, disgustingly rare in American television, criticism of imperialism is faded to only the remnants they were forced to leave in due to the skeleton of the plot, instead portraying those who suffer from the war, yet still want to take action, as jaded bullies and cowards. Jet's portrayal is somehow made a MORE liberal and inaccurate depiction of revolutionaries than the original show's. Instead of being a genuine rebel simply going "too far", a portrayal that would unfortunately be an improvement now, he is a random terrorist who kills innocent people in the in his city he lives in because he dislikes the people who are trying to invade it and don't yet. live. there???????? Because he thinks King Bumi isn't doing enough????????? So he randomly bombs people??????????? . I think they were trying to make Jet and Bumi mirror the "Bernie-bro radical left" and Joe Biden IRL, basically trying to both sides things, but if that's the case than it's even worse because America is the country????? Doing the imperializing???????? Not the one BEING imperialized???  That is, unfortunately, the most mild affront of this adaptation, granted mercy only by the utterly shit, "I hate violinists so I'll make a violinist kill people" tier depiction of the original character they adapted. There are far worse crimes in this adaptation, and I wish they were just failures to adapt the plot or the characters. The show's minimum, bare bones criticism of toxic masculinity and misogyny has been completely removed and stripped away, entirely deleting Sokka (now Sokkka)'s character arc from the show. Of course, the damage to the characters doesn't really matter that much in comparison to the whitewashing and erasure of even the most basic fucking critique of oppressive systems. Unfortunately it doesn't even stop at the removal of political criticism; The entire philosophical breadth of the show has been flattened and reduced to basic tropes. Aang's commitment to life and an uncompromising belief in freedom has been obliterated, and not even the shadow of it remains. Aang is no longer a child grappling with immense obligations, but instead a child who simply went on a ten-minute joyride to clear his head and then had his whole world taken away from him. Rather than grappling with the show's nuanced themes of adulthood, responsibility, freedom, and childishness, they opt instead to have Aang be scolded by every adult he meets about his lack of responsibility, with a complete dearth of pushback (minus a single "power of friendship" moment against Bumi, who is now a cynical old boomer), even from Aang himself, even though he DIDN'T EVEN RUN AWAY IN THIS ADAPTATION!!!!!!  WHAT AM I EVEN SUPPOSED TO TAKE FROM THIS??? ??? Any themes or interrogations of redemption, grief, and loss are killed along with Uncle Iroh's empathy. While, ironically, we have an entire scene where Uncle Iroh the smol bean war criminal is BUWWIED by an MEANIE soldiew who's angwy JUST because his city suffewed a dwaught because of Iroh 🥺. Iroh taunts him and lords over him as being morally superior (despite being a FUCKING WAR CRIMINAL), and it is unfortunately very obvious that we are supposed to sympathize with Iroh in this scene, and view the soldier as unreasonable. Turning a character who is meant to represent someone who realized the horror of war and imperialism only after their own son was lost in combat, to a war criminal who we are meant to forgive even though he isn't sorry, because he doesn't do the war crimes anymore I guess?????? deeply unserious show. Live action shit sucks anyway I'm also fairly sure it didn't even pass the fucking Bechdel test.
we will spend literally years trying to hyper-optimize the tiny amount of space we have (use our willpower to force ourselves to do things), before we spend resources to get more space (more energy to do things) by getting a bigger drive (or fixing the issues that make us not want to do things) sure we have to organize our storage sometimes, but if we have to do it a lot or an excessive amount, something is very wrong btw the reason we do this is because actually fixing issues costs societal resources and we prefer to shift blame on random disabled people rather than support them and take a small profit hit (see: we don't get bigger drives because it costs money)
Yea, yea, I know, no ethical consumption under capitalism, but presuming that I want to not have skin that makes me want to scratch it off like it’s a band-aid, where would I get Shea butter to minimize the slave labor involved? I know you can get coffee that isn’t slave labor coffee if you buy it from the Zapatistas, does anything like that exist for Shea butter? I like making DIY body butter, Shea butter based ones feel amazing and are relatively cheap when made myself PS I know it’s silly and liberal to be this concerned about the origin of products, but it sort of dampers your moisturizing routine when every time you put on your products it reminds you of the horrors of this world
ok so after watching Wonka I can definitively state it is entrepreneurial capitalist propaganda which positions our protagonist, the “noble” Willy Wonka, as a revolutionary overthrowing the monopolistic chocolate cabal. Unfortunately, Willy is nothing of the sort. Due to the nature of value and the capitalist mode of production, Willy Wonka MUST exploit his workers to make profit, and if he ran at a loss or just barely breaking even, he would quickly lose to less ethical companies. In a sense, we live in a world where a Willy Wonka cannot exist. This is why we will never have an Everlasting Gobstopper until we achieve communism.