#Inspired by my earlier Marx post

[desultory-novice]

There are two kinds of (Dream) Friends:

The Situation: Kirby of the Stars is on the ropes against a new and dangerous foe. He's on the verge of passing out when one of his Friends arrives with perfect Big Damn Heroes timing and says:

(exact phrasing may vary)

"How dare you hurt Kirby?!"

-Bandanna Waddle Dee -Rick, Coo, Kine -Gooey -Adeleine & Ribbon -Daroach -Magolor -Taranza -Elfilin

"I'M the only one allowed to beat Kirby!!"

-King Dedede -Meta Knight -Marx -Dark Meta Knight -Susie -Zan, Francisca, Flamberge

#Kirby #Kirby series #not tagging everyone... #Inspired by my earlier Marx post #Also: Happy 32nd Birthday Kirby!! #I'll try to work on an actual art piece...later... #Will rant on my reasoning if questioned XD #(Only two am I mildly torn on. The rest I'm pretty confident)

[icedragonlizard]

Marx and Magolor dynamic interpretation

Most of the Kirby fandom headcanons these two bozos being friends with each other. Best friends, even. Simply put, I do the same. But it's a bit more... complicated than you might think. I can explain the dynamic that I headcanon these two having with each other.

In my headcanon universe, these two go way back. They've known each other for a long time.

They first met in outer space some time after the ending of Milky Way Wishes when Marx crashed into Galactic Nova. Magolor was cruising around in space using his Lor Starcutter, and at one point he found Marx floating around, almost seemingly close to dying. Magolor decided to take him in and help him recover from his injuries. That's when their friendship began, as Marx thanked Magolor so much for having the generosity to save him upon finding him. Even in their earlier days, they've committed mischief together.

Marx has been to Halcandra before thanks to Magolor showing him the place.

Some time after their friendship began, Marx told Magolor about his instance with Kirby, and this eventually inspired Magolor to make his own betrayal plot against Kirby. Marx pleaded for him to succeed. Yes, if you remember that one dialogue line from Magolor in RTDL when he said that somebody told him about Kirby, I headcanon that Marx was the one who did it, and I'm aware that much of the fandom also headcanons this. I'm just bringing it up because it's relevant to my personal dynamic of the two.

Return to Dreamland happens, yadda yadda yadda. At some point after Magolor escaped Another Dimension from his epilogue, he came back to Marx and broke the news to him.

Marx was initially disappointed when hearing that Magolor failed to best Kirby. Magolor, however, expressed his remorse as he then wanted to apologize to Kirby and befriend him. He encouraged Marx to do the same, but Marx was far less interested in doing it.

There was a time period that occurred between RTDL and Star Allies where the relationship between these two became more strained. Magolor was intent on trying to redeem himself, while Marx was far more stubborn and wasn't nearly as interested in changing. Marx at one point even made the suggestion to try to betray Kirby again, which pissed Magolor off. They fight over this. It got to the point that Magolor even threatened to end his friendship with Marx, unless Marx were to finally relent.

Eventually, Marx got some sense knocked into him and decides it really is for the better to just befriend Kirby and co instead of trying to plot against him again. At this point, Marx's and Magolor's friendship improves as Magolor does appreciate Marx finally caving to his request to try to become better.

Much like Magolor, Marx also reconciles with Kirby and befriends him, even though it's notably a lot less heartfelt and remorseful as when Magolor did it, but it was enough to where Kirby accepted Marx as a friend. Magolor was happy when Marx told him that he did this.

Star Allies happens. Marx and Magolor became full-on buddies again as they pull pranks on some of the other dream friends, although Magolor had more restraint and there were times he'd stop Marx if he went too far.

There were moments during Star Allies where all the dream friends were together, but there were also moments where they split up in smaller groups. Unfortunately for Marx and Magolor, they were in different groups when these split-ups happen, as Kirby and Dedede were the ones that assigned these split-ups. I headcanon the groups are split up by respective dream friend waves. So Marx often stuck with Rick, Kine, Coo and Gooey while Magolor often stuck with Taranza and Susie.

Post Star Allies is basically what the dynamic is like for Marx and Magolor in the modern day. They're best buddies. They prank people together. They commit lots of tomfoolery together. They really enjoy each other's company. Basically, they're partners-in-crime.

There are times where Magolor attempts to defend Marx if he thinks he's being criticized at a degree that isn't needed.

However, despite being besties, Magolor doesn't always condone Marx's actions, and he'll stop him and hold him accountable if he deems it necessary. Generally speaking, Magolor himself loves a good prank even if it pisses people off, but he tries to make sure that the pranks don't seriously harm people and also tries not to be too offensive to the point of crossing a line.

Marx on the other hand does not care. He'll go as far as he wants if it means committing to the bit. Even after mellowing down a bit and befriending Kirby, Marx is still a lot less repentant than Magolor, and he's still far more unbridled in mischief.

There are many people that like Magolor but hate Marx. The two most prominent examples are Taranza and Susie.

I'm aware many people like to headcanon "Wave 3 + Marx" friend group, but if I'm being honest, I don't. In my interpretation, Taranza and Susie are Magolor's friends but they cannot stand Marx.

Marx has made Sectonia jokes, which is why Taranza hates him. It doesn't take much for Susie to snap in anger when dealing with Marx in general, as he does/says things that cross the line for her.

Magolor has also pranked his fellow wave 3 pals before, but he's never gone nearly to the extent of Marx, as he doesn't want to ruin his friendships with them.

Magolor has had to break up Taranza vs. Marx fights and Susie vs. Marx fights. He even helps his fellow wave 3 pals in keeping Marx away from them.

Marx is also only allowed in Merry Magoland as long as he behaves. Despite Magolor being mischief-minded, he doesn't want trouble to happen in his park, and he'll ask Marx to leave if he causes trouble.

There's this moment where Marx gets ecstatic upon seeing the Marx Soul Mask in Merry Magoland, though, lol.

Magolor will allow Marx to join in Lor Starcutter rides, but only if the trip doesn't also include someone that dislikes/hates Marx (like Susie for example) then he'll have to stay out because that's likely going to lead to fights.

I will however mention one dream friend that Marx and Magolor can certainly form some sort of trio with: Daroach. Daroach is mischief-minded and doesn't get pissed off as easily as many others, so he can stand Marx. The three of them do tomfoolery sprees.

There's also this funny headcanon I have of Magolor and Daroach stealing from each other (that's basically the main meat of their dynamic) and Marx sometimes gets caught in the middle of their shenanigans as one of them asks for his assistance against the other.

The animal friends may also sometimes join Marx and Magolor in tomfoolery, since they also like Marx, and thus that makes them willing to join the duo. However, like Magolor, they'll stop him if they think he goes too far.

Anyways, that's essentially my dynamic for Marx and Magolor! They've been through a lot together, they're both mega-trolls, and they troll people together, although Magolor is more careful and will stop Marx if he goes too far. But despite not always condoning his actions, Magolor still considers Marx to be his buddy. The two most mischievous ones in Kirby's wide colorful group of friends.

#kirby #marx kirby #magolor #kirby super star #kirby super star ultra #kirby's return to dream land #kirby's return to dreamland deluxe #kirby star allies #merry magoland

[clevelandstate]

Film Students and Safe Sets

Written by Lauren Koleszar // The Vindicator

*This story has been edited slightly for length*

Film & Media Arts is one of the most hands-on majors at Cleveland State. It relies on massive collaboration and in-person filming that normally requires between ten and thirty cast and crew members for upperclassmen producing junior- and senior-level professional content. New COVID-19 guidelines require a “Safe Sets” certification, and students have been limited to crews of ten people or less on a set at one time. Camera departments that normally run on four to five students are being managed by two if they’re lucky. Students are choosing to produce scripts that need only a few actors and can be filmed at safe, easily accessible locations. Students are desperately working on pre-production and editing from home; and when on set, they’re filling multiple crew positions to make up for the absence of the much larger number of students who are normally able to work on one set together.

In spite of these challenges, film students at CSU are producing impressive creative content and becoming multi-faceted filmmakers as they take on many new responsibilities that are ultimately shaping them into better equipped professionals who will have a wide range of skills and experience.

We talked to film major Davis Chu, whose freshman year at CSU coincided with the opening of the university’s new film school in the fall of 2018. The initial lockdown hit during Davis’s second sophomore semester, and he took us through his personal experience and observation of the evolution of student filmmaking at CSU over the course of the last year.

LAUREN KOLESZAR: Elevator pitch. Who are you, what do you do and what interests you? DAVIS CHU: Hello there, my name is Davis. I’m a third-year film major, concentration in post-production, with a minor in graphic design. I am also in the Honors college. My passions include: writing, comedy, animation, editing, music, screenwriting, acting, and television. To clarify, when I say “television,” I mean watching it. Although I’m also working on an original pilot for school.

LK: Why are you studying film, and what are some of your favorite films, creatives or influences? DC: I think if life is a circus, then studying film is a trampoline. It may not have the safety net of other more stable fields, but it’s a great launching pad for someone who wants to pursue the arts. 

I’m a film major, but I don’t consume as much film as I do comedy and TV. My comedy influences include the Marx Brothers, Monty Python, Mel Brooks, Larry David, Dave Chappele, Ricky Gervais, Dana Carvey, Marc Maron, Conan O’Brien, John Mulaney, Sarah Silverman, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert...

For TV shows: VEEP, Barry, Fleabag, Atlanta, Master of None, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Arrested Development, Succession, Girls, Seinfeld, Game of Thrones, Rick and Morty...

LK: Film is so hands-on, and most classes changed dramatically with the switch to Zoom. Describe the impact of the March 2020 lockdown on your film classes and projects. What kinds of things unique to film students had to change? DC: The period of January to March was a very slow, then exponential realization that the world was falling apart. I was supposed to edit a student short. My assistant editor was my dear friend Alex Maytin. They were yet to shoot, but the production was underway, and Alex and I were preparing to tackle the footage. It was an ambitious project and it honestly seemed monumental. Little did we know that the lockdown would dwarf our problems completely.

When school announced it was going virtual, Alex and I started brainstorming a potential remote workflow. He was gonna merge and organize the footage, mail it on a USB and I would edit. Like, we really thought the production was still happening. Needless to say, it didn’t.

Everyone in the school had to take on their own projects and oversee it from start to finish. People chose to make documentaries, short narrative films, I decided to make a small series of sketches titled Under Quarantine.

LK: What has filmmaking been like in the era of COVID-19? DC: I think the lasting impact on the film industry will be distribution. We were already moving in the direction of streaming services. But I think the presence of COVID-19 has accelerated the process. My prediction is that studios and creatives will probably lean away from film and into miniseries. I don’t really mind that. Storytelling is storytelling, whether it’s a 120-minute movie or a three-episode hour-long miniseries.

LK: How has your personal approach to creating and studying changed over the past year? DC: I’m definitely not alone in saying I’ve grown a lot in the past year. What changed the most is my approach to learning and creating. I’ve come to the conclusion that almost every skill is learnable. If you want to get good at something, all you have to do is take the time to do it. Last semester, I had a lot more time I could dedicate to my schoolwork (just by removing the time it takes to walk to and from class). I made some stuff I was really proud of. I found a love for animation. I think I have more patience for overcoming learning curves now.

LK: What has changed for the better? For the worse? DC: There are a couple super small silver linings if you look close enough. One of them is the accessibility and flexibility of education. For most of the classes I was taking, the transition was rather smooth. If I’m taking an animation class, and we’re all using our computers anyway, why don’t we take advantage of this great technology and just meet virtually?  

LK: How has the transition been for professors and faculty? In what ways have they helped make accommodations for students? DC: The professors have been incredibly accommodating. Earlier this semester, I tested positive for COVID and [it] wiped me out. I emailed all of my teachers and within a day, every one of them responded with empathy and get-well wishes. Through extensions and exemptions, I was able to catch up and now I’m back! It’s also cool that the faculty are conscious enough that not everyone has access to the same level of technology.

LK: Has there been anything you've learned or had the opportunity to experience because of the impact of COVID-19? Personal or film-related? DC: I don’t know how much of this is related to COVID-19 but I have been pretty introspective lately. I’ve been slowly coming to terms with the Asian-American experience and how race has affected me. With this topic in mind, I started writing a TV pilot for my class. I guess that is one of the benefits of being an arts major. Be it COVID-19 or racism or any problem, we have the luxury of being forced to process our emotions. 

LK: Finally, what inspires you and how do you work to overcome the weight of the pandemic on your college and creative experience? DC: I take everything one step at a time. And I try to remember that so long as I’m doing my part to keep other people safe, that’s all that really matters. Control what you can, set a good example for others, and let go of the rest. And creatively, so long as I have access to tools I can use to make stuff, I’m satisfied.

*To read this article in it’s original, full-length format or to check out other great Vindicator content, visit thevindi.com/post/film-students-and-safe-sets.

#TheVindi #the vindicator #film and media #Engaged Learning #Cleveland State University #cleveland state

[moonamite]

Fic rambles

The 3 fics I posted earlier were my first times Writing from the POV’s of Marx and Goonie. Dedede isn’t included in the first-time POV group is becasue his fic didn’t really have a POV. You saw the world from Your own POV. Not DDD, not his mom, YOU. Also, Marx’s character was heavily inspired by Peril/Snowfall from the Wings Of Fire series. DDD’s fic was my first time writing the POV of a child. “But, Moon! Aren’t YOU a kid?” Well, technically, yes. But DDD in the fic is like 5 years old. Goonie was also hard to write. Despite literally having Anxiety myself, I didn’t know how to write it for another character. I am also just a little (A lot, actually) Burned out from writing 3 whole mini-fics in one day lol

#ramblings #about my writing

[mystoicalbluebirdobject-blog]

My nonsense starts

I have been staying at home for over two months since coronavirus outbroke in Wuhan, or to be more precise- since the outbreak in Wuhan was finally revealed and since when (only) some people began to fear. It’s sunny today in northeast China, my hometown. I took a walk out and appreciated the revived lives. I have been sleepy for all these days though interning from home for WSJ every weekday. But a large bottle of green tea with salt-cheese on top saved my life today, and further it inspired me to keep down my emotions at this very moment and for the last few months.

As a student majoring in journalism, I think I should have written something about that epidemic earlier. At least, I should have kept some literal records- I know I couldn’t work as a mature journalist yet, but I could be historian-like or writer-like to protect memories from fading away. But the fact is disappointing- I left nothing in my Word documents and notebooks. I only saved many screen captures including memorable, powerful reports (which are blocked now) and confusing, desperate SOS messages in my mobile phone, but deleted them all yesterday. There would be no opportunity for me to shed light on these captures, therefore, it was no pity of the deletion. It seems like a new page now for China. History is for historians, but apparently the near history is for politicians. I did post via social media a lot during late-January and early-February, and I deleted these posts, too. It’s a sore point indeed for someone who enjoys hoarding information. I am working for foreign media and don’t want to trouble my colleagues- it’s such sensitive moment if you know about the repulsion that our personal information must have been acquired by administrative institutions in China.

I have felt more connected with Wuhan than ever. Wuhan is my second hometown accordingly- I study in Wuhan University in junior year even though I have finished all my course credits last semester. I used to complain a lot about its awkward location and terrible administrative system. It ranks one of the best Chinese universities but its ranking drops and drops every year since it locates in the middle of China. It is called “the first CCP school in central China” because we have to pass closed-book exams for ideological and political subjects. In other universities, the exams are open. There were four, and now it’s five: Ideological and Moral Cultivation and Basic Law Education, Outline of Chinese Modern History (rewritten CCP history, mostly), Basic Principle of Marxism (rewritten Marxism, as a great philosopher, Marx is so poor), Maoism and Xiism. You can’t imagine- I was prepared to graduate and thought having finished all courses when the staff suddenly told us a new course was inserted into our compulsory subjects- Xiism. However, I love Wuhan University despite many such unhappy experiences. It sounds contradictory, but it’s real- it’s the last place in China that preserves freedom, or at least it caltivates my freedom- to think.

I feel connected to it not only for the closeness but also because my beloved professors and friends are there to live, you know, you hear people are dying and you can’t help think they are people who once walked past you on street. I was in great depression in the days when everything was in shortage in Wuhan. I shivered during nights and couldn’t figure out why things evolved in that cruel way, taking away lives all in a sudden. I left on 5 Jan. when the city was alive but it became dead within a month. Behind the surging figures there are vivid lives. Now is the time to “harvest” from the “victory”, as if the figures are necessary sacrifices during a righteous war. That’s partially right. The deaths are the kind of sacrifices in a political ritual, same as the chickens, ducks and geese with their throats cut in ancient times. And the only enhancement in the administrative operation I have seen so far is that they devastate and eliminate the last piece of space for opinion. The Office of the Central Leading Group for Cyberspace Affairs would probably be the most efficient and assiduous institution throughout China. Though I would never like to be passionate about politics and like to shelter me from being too radical, my efforts to avoid incurring trouble didn’t pay off- both philosophy and sociology can be radical and anti-social here.

That’ why I now start blogging here in English which I am bad at. I have NO intention for debating over politics or complaining about CCP government here. I am just planning to find somewhere to place my reading notes on sociology and philosophy. They are vulnerable due to censorship.

#wuhan #diary #mood #sunny day #nonsense #coronavirus #loveandpeace

[geopolicraticus]

Addendum on Naturalism Purged of Metaphysical Fallacies

Three developments have transformed philosophy in the past century: the exponential growth of knowledge in the natural sciences (which has given philosophers new things to think about), the convergence upon naturalism as an overarching philosophical framework, and the use to logical and linguistic analysis both to clarify and to sharpen ancient philosophical questions. One might well identify the emergence and rise to dominance of naturalism as the essential driving force: the growth of naturalism entails the growth of the natural sciences and the use of naturalistic methods such as logic (rather than, for example, relying upon intuition, poetic vision, mystical insight, or divine inspiration) in philosophy.

Naturalism stands in relationship to 21st century philosophical thought as scholasticism stood in relation to 13th century philosophical thought: it is the background conceptual framework (usually itself imperfectly and incompletely articulated, but nevertheless pervasively present) that underlies most explicit philosophical formulations. In the same way that it would be difficult to identify the exact content of scholasticism in the 13th century, it would be difficult to identify the exact content of naturalism today, and this is to be expected from a fundamental philosophical orientation in its ascendancy.  

The convergence upon a naturalistic framework has led to a flowering of analytical metaphysics over the past few decades. Out of sight of the public, philosophers have been formulating metaphysical doctrines of unparalleled subtlety and sophistication in the effort both to account for the growth of scientific knowledge and to place traditional philosophical problems within this scientific context. This began tentatively at the beginning of the twentieth century with figures like Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore, (I have a volume on my shelf titled Classics of Analytical Metaphysics that includes many of these early contributions to the discipline), and it continues today.

This flowering of analytical metaphysics, most of it more or less naturalistic in character, poses fundamental questions about naturalism. For example, if we purged naturalism of all metaphysical fallacies, would there be any metaphysical remainder, or does the purging of metaphysical fallacy from naturalism mean the purging of metaphysics per se? This, of course, was a question posed (albeit in different terms) by early twentieth century logical empiricism, and the answer given by the anti-metaphysical faction (not Russell and Moore, but figures like Ayer and Carnap) was a resounding “Yes!” -- the purging of metaphysical fallacy means the purging of all metaphysics, or, at least, it ought to mean this.

Implicit in this assumption is that idea that naturalism is the “correct” philosophy of nature (well, not really a philosophy of nature at all, but rather the correct account of nature), and the only reason that naturalism cannot deliver to us an appropriately simple and non-controversial account of the world is because naturalism still remains in thrall to metaphysical fallacies. If we could purge the metaphysical fallacies from naturalism, we would be left with a “flatly natural” account of the world, and philosophy would simply disappear as an intellectual discipline. This kind of reminds me of Marx’s prediction that the state would wither away upon the realization of the communist utopia; for the logical empiricists, philosophy would wither away with the realization of the scientific utopia. 

In my earlier post Naturalism Purged of Metaphysical Fallacies, I argued that naturalism purged of metaphysical fallacies is itself a metaphysical doctrine, and that we ought not to equivocate on that point. I am not opposed to metaphysics per se, only to bad metaphysics. If we can have a metaphysical naturalism without metaphysical fallacies, then that is all to the good as far as I am concerned. What, then, is the metaphysical content of naturalism?

Naturalism as a metaphysical doctrine could be interpreted broadly or narrowly. Narrowly, the only metaphysical content of naturalism is the denial of the supernatural or the supranatural -- the denial of anything outside nature, the denial of anything above, beyond, behind, or beneath nature. Nietzsche called this the assumption of a world behind the world. Elsewhere I have called this “non-human non-agency,” meaning that anything non-human (I should have said “non-natural”) lacks the agency to affect or be affected, and thus fails Plato’s definition of being (or, alternatively, is the null case of the Platonic definition of being).

Broadly construed, the picture of naturalism becomes much more interesting, because the narrow content of naturalism is consistent with a great many different theories of analytical metaphysics. Contemporary analytical metaphysics mostly takes place within a naturalistic framework (whether openly acknowledged or furtively avoided), so that there are potentially as many metaphysical naturalisms as there are naturalistic formulations of metaphysics today. In this sense, my own thought exemplifies the principle of mediocrity, as my formulations also are framed in the context of naturalism, albeit a metaphysics-tolerant naturalism. On the other hand, metaphysics-intolerant naturalism must hold that there is only one, true naturalism, and that is the naturalism that is the remainder following the purge of metaphysical fallacy.

Of the plethora of naturalistic metaphysical doctrines being explored today (within metaphysics-tolerant naturalism), no doubt some will come to be seen as metaphysical fallacies in their time, while others will survive and undergo adaptive radiation as they extend their influence and become influential philosophies in their own right. The work of rooting out metaphysical fallacy is never complete; the mistakes being made today, and yet to be made tomorrow, will continue to trip us up on occasion. As metaphysics both expands and deepens as a discipline, mistakes will be made at the cutting edge, but progress will also be made.

What ought to most concern us is not the ongoing human fallibility that is part of the human condition, but rather the all-too-present danger of repeating ancient and familiar fallacies in new forms. The experience of past failures in metaphysical reasoning should, if nothing else, make us aware of the perennial failures to which human reason is subject. Knowing our cognitive weaknesses and vulnerabilities by knowing our past fallacies deprives the future commission of fallacies of this same kind of even a fig leaf of concealment.

With the decline of philosophy as an institution (and by “decline” I mean a decline in social and academic prestige) and the rise of science to take the place of philosophy as the ultimate scholarly undertaking, there is in many quarters a contempt for traditional philosophical problems and formulations. The idea is that we are modern and know so much more than our predecessors that we can dispense with the long history of errors that is philosophy. One can immediately see, in stating the attitude in this way, how this both drives and is driven by the idea of a perfectly simple naturalism that will remain once we have purged our thought of metaphysical fallacies.

In the scientific implementation of this idea, in contradistinction to the philosophical implementation, we merely need kick philosophy of the curb and we will be free of it and its errors; in the philosophical version, we must actually make the effort to unravel and resolve past errors, rather than merely abandon them. We need not look far to see the simple-minded result of the scientific strategy for the extirpation of philosophy: we get otherwise very sophisticated minds making elementary errors, like debates over the “fine-tuning” of physical constants -- a transparent design argument that puts the cart before the horse. Darwin had to struggle mightily with this kind of naive but pervasive teleology, but many have allowed themselves to comfortably slip back into this rut.

Philosophy cannot be avoided by ignoring it and wishing it away. What you get from avoiding or ignoring philosophy is not a philosophy-free discourse, but a position with concealed and sophomoric philosophical presuppositions. We can go better than this -- much better. We need to actively combine the methods and insights of philosophy and science into a whole greater than the parts defined by disciplinary silos. There are, to be sure, intimations of this even today, but these intimations are uncertain, tentative, hesitant, and fragmentary, and there is always a danger of taking the easy path because it is easier and one does not wish to invest serious effort in an enterprise that is, at present, plagued with doubts and second thoughts.

Generations of philosophers have aspired to a scientific metaphysics, and we will know that we have begun down this route when we can confidently build upon the foundations of our predecessors, rather than starting anew each generation, which mostly has been the custom in philosophy, when new doctrines are put forward with pragmatic regularity. Scientists have not been equally as keen to aspire to a philosophically-informed science, though some have, in practice, done exactly this (Mach, Einstein, etc.). 

Metaphysical Methodology

Metaphysical Fallacies

Metaphysical Biases

Pernicious Metaphysics

Metaphysical Fallacies Again

Forms of Metaphysical Bias

Metaphysical Pathology

Addendum on Metaphysical Pathology

Revolutionary Metaphysics

Metaphysical Paradox

Addendum on Metaphysical Paradox

Naturalism Purged of Metaphysical Fallacies

Metaphysical Conflation

#metaphysical methodology #metaphysics #naturalism #Socotra Island #scientific metaphysics #philosophy

[vampireadamooc]

As Always: text is provided only in the event of access expiration or post deletions from the hosting site. Whenever possible, always read the article at the link.

Blood Types ‘The Vampire: A New History’ By Regina Munch October 29, 2018 Books Secularism and Modernity

The Vampire of Vinesac, 1883 (Chronicle / Alamy Stock Photo) Right from the start, a recent long-anticipated trip to Romania delivered on its promise. On the shuttle from the airport into the heart of Bucharest the driver asked if we had ever visited before. When I told him no, his mood turned grave. “We have a beautiful country,” he said. “But it is not safe to go out at night, especially for a young woman.” When I asked why, he hit the brakes, turned around slowly, and smiled. “You must be careful of the vampires.”

It was just what I’d been hoping for. A huge fan of Dracula, I’d always wanted to see the place that had inspired Bram Stoker’s classic tale, and to get a sense of how its citizens feel about clueless foreigners associating their entire country with nocturnal bloodsuckers and Vlad the Impaler. They certainly seem willing to cash in on it, judging from the tourism industry’s marketing and advertising. But they also revel in it, as evidenced by my grinning shuttle driver.

Romanians are hardly the first people to use the myth of the vampire to establish an identity or advance an agenda, as Nick Groom makes clear in his book The Vampire: A New History. Far from a Freudian representation of sexual desire, an inelegant metaphor for colonialism, or merely a played-out trope, the vampire, according to Groom, is something more layered and complex. “Vampires came into being when Enlightenment rationality encountered East European folklore,” he writes, “an encounter that attempted to make sense of them through empirical reasoning and that, by treating them as credible, gave them reality.” Various folklore traditions make whispering mention of mysterious hybrid ghosts, zombies, werewolves, and demons, many of which suck blood. Only after members of the European elite began to investigate these entities using the science of the day did they become what we know as vampires. Thus, “the vampire is a specific phenomenon that dates from a precise period in a certain place, and which consequently has recognizable manifestations and qualities—particularly concerning blood, science, society, and culture.”

Groom divides his book into two sections—delightfully titled “Circulating” and “Coagulating”—to demonstrate the flow of ideas about disease, demonology, and politics in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which congeal in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries into the Gothic literary figure—epitomized by Stoker’s Dracula—that we’re familiar with today. He writes that although most histories of vampire mythology begin in the Victorian era, the Gothic monster can be traced back to the folkloric milieu of the previous two centuries. From Eastern Europe came tales of bloodsucking creatures that stalked the living, tales that through the 1600s and 1700s spread across the continent. They shared many of the same elements: the vampire comes into being through the reanimation of a corpse; it can influence the weather and certain animals; it preys on loved ones, strangling and sucking the victim’s blood, often from the chest; it can be killed with a stake or by decapitation. Localized versions might include more specific details, such as the unearthing and opening of a suspected vampire’s coffin to find the corpse floating in fresh blood and gore. Sometimes it had partially eaten itself and its clothes. In other versions, one could protect oneself by drinking blood from a vampire’s head, eating the dirt from its grave, receiving Holy Communion, or making the sign of the cross.

The corporeality of the vampire—as opposed to the ephemerality of a ghost, for example—lent itself well to “investigation” via the latest medical and forensic methodologies. William Harvey’s discovery of circulation, Christopher Wren’s development of hypodermic injections, and fears of contagious disease were changing the way the body was understood, and when European empires consolidated power over Eastern Europe, they deployed new techniques to make sense of what they were hearing about. It was only in such investigations, Groom writes, that vampires were “discovered”; they “did not exist until the emerging medical profession and natural philosophers began to try to explain them and they were thus named and categorized as vampires.” When, for example, a recently deceased woman was reported to be attacking villages in Moravia and her corpse was found to have fresh blood in it, Holy Roman Empress Maria Theresa deployed two doctors and the head surgeon of the military to look into the matter. Such investigations were thoroughly documented, as Groom writes: “Detailed forensic examinations were accordingly made and records kept, including catalogues of signs and symptoms, and much learned (and pseudo-learned) work was published in professional journals.” Indeed, in the 1730s, many such journals made their reputations for scholarly seriousness and rationality with accounts of outbreaks of vampirism in Eastern Europe.

Even Enlightenment philosophes weighed in, trying to discern what was mere religious superstition and how, if vampires did indeed exist, they might be incorporated into knowledge about the natural world. As these reports spread west, debates about vampires “detonated.” One of Groom’s most interesting chapters recounts the different ways religious authorities responded to reports of vampires, and how their responses reflected their own theological and political priorities. The Catholic Church, for example, downplayed such reports; clergy saw that they might lose their influence if people resorted to near-pagan methods of protecting themselves from spiritual peril. Eastern Orthodox clergy, on the other hand, promoted belief in vampires and presided over stakings and decapitations of suspect corpses to reinforce their power over encroaching Roman Catholicism. From a theological standpoint, the issue was even thornier. For Protestant theologians, “vampirism, seemingly engineered by the Devil and his demonic minions, smacked too much of Catholic superstition” and so was dismissed. Catholics, theologically invested in corporeality, were in more of a bind. If the dead really were being raised to hunt the living, did that mean the Devil was as powerful as God? This couldn’t be true—so was vampirism a diabolical illusion meant to lure sinners into pagan beliefs? Even Enlightenment philosophes weighed in, trying to discern what was mere religious superstition and how, if vampires did indeed exist, they might be incorporated into knowledge about the natural world.

Bloodsucking monsters also transformed political life. Groom writes that as scientific discoveries increasingly “medicalized” the human body, so the metaphor of the “body politic” changed as well. Vampire analogies proved useful for political agitators: usurers were called vampiric for their predatory loans; monks sucked funds from the wallets of peasants; corrupt officials cannibalized their citizens. In other words, “blood oozed through eighteenth-century thought…simultaneously part of everyday life, a mysterious substance of folklore and superstition, [that] lay at the heart of the Christian mass and the symbolism of the Church.” The figure of the vampire encompassed all these aspects.

It is from this frothing and fearful era in European history that the literary Gothic vampire was born in the nineteenth century. While vampires originated in Eastern Europe, Groom writes, their main “artery” was England, where the vampire became Gothicized and Romanticized into the figures we know today. Anxieties over medical advances—corpse-harvesting; vivisection; and a new institution, hospitals—seeped into vampire stories. As theories of evolution began to gain traction, vampire mythology became a vehicle for expressing fear of regression to a primeval state—one in which we are all bloodthirsty predators. Soon enough it was fear of women—specifically the “New Women,” who “dressed casually, smoked, rode bicycles and even—horror of horrors!—educated themselves.” (It is telling that most nineteenth-century vampires were female.) Karl Marx applied the vampire metaphor to economics and politics: “Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” Stoker’s Dracula is a culmination of all these aspects of the nineteenth-century vampire. The text is a “mass of papers—a scrapbook of textual proofs that reflect the earlier emphasis on evidence and authenticity.” Dracula is brilliant for its ability to set old folklore against new technology, to combine “contagion and the body, blood and the economy, political power, the invisible and vampirism” that haunted the Victorian imagination while drawing on an earlier obsession with empirical evidence and investigation.

Lurking in the cracks of social, theological, political, and medical knowledge, vampires drew “uncomfortable and disturbing attention” to society’s shortcomings. Always threatening to escape the cracks, to “ooze” and “contaminate,” vampires confound boundaries and borders, natural and supernatural, self and other. Groom writes, in the most chilling passage I have read in an academic text, “Vampires are not both dead and alive; they are also undead. And so they disturb the primacy of animated life and humanity by replacing the fundamental distinction of life and death with a third state of being”—that is, unbeing.

Though Groom impressively manages to analyze vampires’ influence on almost every facet of private and public life—social, theological political, medical, cultural, sexual, literary—over the span of four centuries, there are a few missteps. For such a well-organized book, the writing can meander. And in his evident enthusiasm for the topic, Groom sometimes loses the reader with examples that don’t quite find their way back to a larger point. But the examples are so fascinating in themselves that this is forgivable.

Groom writes that he has “tried to resist essentializing the vampire as an elemental mythic type,” or letting it be a mere canvas for theories about sexual neuroses, colonialism, or feminist theory, “valuable as these approaches might be in other ways.” Instead, “the vampire becomes more thought-provoking and more perplexing” in its correct historical context, and when it is allowed to seep from the fractures in our thinking and the contradictions of daily life. “Vampires are good to think with,” he writes. Let them be the “roving thought-experiments” that they are. I agree with him there. Just be careful at night.

#By Regina Munch #newspaper clipping #tags preserved for the comments of the OP

[jordan-star]

I posted 833 times in 2021

49 posts created (6%)

784 posts reblogged (94%)

For every post I created, I reblogged 16.0 posts.

I added 12 tags in 2021

#youtube - 3 posts

#zodiac is virgo - 1 posts

#a few plushes for a collection - 1 posts

#it's a car - 1 posts

#why would they do that - 1 posts

#bored so why not - 1 posts

#some harry potter house shirts - 1 posts

#some funko pops - 1 posts

#my ocs - 1 posts

#3rd dimension series - 1 posts

Longest Tag: 47 characters

#i never really thought as myself as talented 🤔

My Top Posts in 2021

#5

My grandma got this for me a little early as I was going to be in my dorm by the time my birthday came which is today! Wasn't able to bring him with me as I already had a lot of things packed

See the full post

6 notes • Posted 2021-08-25 12:15:40 GMT

#4

A care bear related theory I posted earlier on an amino http://aminoapps.com/p/qmf5dd5

6 notes • Posted 2021-01-27 01:52:48 GMT

#3

Been playing a bit of Luigi's mansion 1 throughout the day. I think this is gonna be a perfect run!

See the full post

7 notes • Posted 2021-05-25 21:56:41 GMT

#2

Me: Olá, Jordan! Como você está hoje?! (Brazilian Portuguese translation: Hello, Jordan! How are you today?!)

Exhausted, had a big night yesterday at senior prom and I'm still quite tired.

12 notes • Posted 2021-06-17 22:37:29 GMT

#1

CB OC’s done... for now

Over the time period of about two to three years when I first started taking a look back at care bears, I started making a few of my own oc’s. At first just a bit of a hobby then I think I got a bit carried away while doing so many other things in the Process. While watching the streams, the old shows/movies, and maybe just playing a game unrelated, I’d end up thinking of something to tie it together. Sometimes just for the hell of it or because I thought it’d be cool.

I’m much more of a writer, so I’d like to know what most think of these characters and their individuality.

These are the characters that are fully done, There are some that I just haven’t typed things out for yet so will remain unlisted for the time.

First trio

(Sona) Star Heart Bear - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/star-heart-bear/jNlp_v3FoI3vPppBMG5obNnnab8KveYGG3

Nature Bear - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/nature-bear/nwWz_qnfKIM6M4EwrR2p7ParVRmZMzGBX1

Sweetheart Bear - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/sweetheart-bear/B3j5_aZCmIzX17neKVN5vL0o1ExqEYgb5l

Benders Quartet 

(Earth) Iron Will Dog - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/iron-will-dog/MRjm_bMc0I2XjRLN7En31okEEXq52e78km

(Fire) Warm Heart Bear - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/warm-heart-bear/aPe0_2lt8In2NLbnRxvRk4kdNwR8m2EQGQ

(Air) Sky’s-The-Limit Panda - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/skys-the-limit-panda/mN2Q_DvF0Iea2MY1YLdD8wjn7KlKjXVdrw

(Water) Marine Sea Bear - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/marine-sea-bear/P4jb_6Ni3INM5rBowdQa03xXJaGqPG1qeq

Sound Trio

Face-The-Music Cat - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/face-the-music-cat/W6z3_vQSVILnxmavwaZXnoVx5pQ4Y7VvXe

Melody Heart Cat - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/melody-heart-cat/EvzG_wnSLI5DgZZbbGZBEZ87KnxlKvkD7z

Heart Beats Leopard - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/heart-beats-leopard/mN2Q_DvF0IMQqMNJDRVx25D1xvmxBQEM8

Kirby series Trio

(Kirby) Copy Star Bear - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/copy-star-bear/Qmo2_VXTYIlzKvM522qn6g6BYGY5jrzpPb

(Meta Knight) Stoic Heart Bear - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/stoic-heart-bear/jNlp_v3FoI8Z8pr87R1xmbEp0w5Vex8Bxn

(Marx) Chaos Heart Bear - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/chaos-heart-bear/0xeg_o7SZIJLkzzoBJbG5ZgKX7VpP17vZx

Miscellaneous

(Harry Potter inspiration) Mystic Heart Bear - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/mystic-heart-bear/JLzD_mjcMIXlYQr8X4VboxD0DdDJn0a3k

All Better Bunny - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/all-better-bunny/xNEW_JaFQId06LDKe15Pl1NXd7E2bKMe4

Plushy Heart Rabbit - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/plushy-heart-rabbit/W6z3_vQSVILDVjqZ8oEz0o8Ljb1lZ6Y548

Compassion Bear - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/compassion-bear/Zgzv_DwsXIgBbVmplZKVP0adM2BgglkBKk

Mecha Bear - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/mecha-bear/B3j5_aZCmIJvN0KedQDn81ee6rJMGqjBj8

Gamer Star Meerkat - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/gamer-star-meerkat/YJzr_E7TXIvNK2DNPoKEZYxqneldbgEmp5

Reverie Bear - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/reverie-bear/XVKZ_nzuXIgQwPz7DMrVbablzd7j14BGW1

Moonlight Bat - https://aminoapps.com/c/carea/page/item/moonlight-bat/74GP_amiNI543WgKqnwPn5Y5oYmzPNJddZ

See the full post

26 notes • Posted 2021-04-23 18:13:28 GMT

Get your Tumblr 2021 Year in Review →

#my 2021 tumblr year in review #your tumblr year in review

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

Marxists & the U.S. Civil War

By Steven Gillis

All revolutionary-minded, class-conscious, socialist realists and dreamers of the impossible are rightly studying the so-called U.S. Civil War, the subsequent period known as Reconstruction -- which W.E.B. DuBois characterized as a "dictatorship of the proletariat", especially in southern states -- and the continuing, ultra-violent, mass-incarceration counter-revolution -- including many glorious, countervailing, forward upsurges like the Rosa Parks-inspired Civil Rights Movement, the Black Panther Party, the Young Lords, the American Indian Movement and the Black Lives Matter Movement -- the 150-year counter-revolution exemplified by the Trump, Wall Street-inspired, neo-fascist reaction of this moment. 

Comrades, especially those relatively new to the struggle, are diving into Marx's perspective on the Civil War, which is splendid and also contains serious 19th-century limitations on perspective, predicated on the then, in retrospect, backward state of scientific and revolutionary knowledge, especially regarding national, racial and gender oppression. To a comrade's question about whether Karl Marx supported the "Union" war effort, I offered this following comment:

Here's another interesting way to look at the question [of Karl Marx's and the mid-19th-century communist movement's position on the U.S. Civil War], besides what Marx wrote [from a distance and with mid-19th-century limitations] in championing the world-historic revolutionary war his generation witnessed and participated in to smash [what he termed] the "slavocrats'" states:

Many participants in what became known as the U.S. Civil War saw themselves as actors in the great revolutionary upsurge that just a few years before saw the newly forming working class enter the revolutionary arena for the first time to smash the feudal aristocracy and the brutal system of serfdom and landlordism that Marx described in his 1848 "The Communist Manifesto.” Engels participated in the armed uprising against the Prussian state in 1849, barely escaping with his life. Many working class, communist-minded combatants of the 1848-1850 revolutions that resulted in the bourgeoisie sweeping out its aristocratic opponents from France to Italy to Hungary fled to the U.S., as the bourgeois victors turned their guns around against the workers and peasants who'd done most of the fighting and castle burning, where many became immediately active in the abolitionist movement, some finding themselves on the early, bloody frontlines in Kansas and elsewhere.

Two quick examples:

1. The opening paragraphs (below) of Osborne P. Anderson's "A Voice from Harper's Ferry" -- which Workers World Party re-published and rescued from its purposeful obscurity by post-Reconstruction, revisionist historians of the "lost cause" -- show the profound world-view and international consciousness of this sole Black survivor of John Brown's army, that he was participating in the revolutionary fight for freedom from feudal slavery that included the revolutionary upheavals in Europe which were a mere 10-years fresh on everybody's' minds. Take the reference to "Kossuth" in the second paragraph. While we revolutionaries of the 21st century have no need to embrace all of the ultra-nationalist, even racist politics of this Hungarian insurrectionist of 1848 who never denounced slavery in the U.S., he received mass parades in U.S. cities in 1852, hailed as a liberator in what the Queen of England derided as "Kossuth fever", and inspired abolitionist organizing, some of whom fired the first shots at Harper’s Ferry in 1859 with nothing but sparking a revolution of enslaved African peoples on their minds:

"The Idea and Its Exponents — John Brown Another Moses

“The idea underlying the outbreak at Harper’s Ferry is not peculiar to that movement, but dates back to a period very far beyond the memory of the “oldest inhabitant,” and emanated from a source much superior to the Wises and Hunters, the Buchanans and Masons of today. It was the appointed work for life of an ancient patriarch spoken of in Exodus, chap. ii., and who, true to his great commission, failed not to trouble the conscience and to disturb the repose of the Pharaohs of Egypt with that inexorable, “Thus saith the Lord: Let my people go!” until even they were urgent upon the people in its behalf. Coming down through the nations, and regardless of national boundaries or peculiarities, it has been proclaimed and enforced by the patriarch and the warrior of the Old World, by the enfranchised freeman and the humble slave of the New.

“Its nationality is universal; its language everywhere understood by the haters of tyranny; and those that accept its mission, everywhere understand each other. There is an unbroken chain of sentiment and purpose from Moses of the Jews to John Brown of America; from Kossuth, and the liberators of France and Italy, to the untutored Gabriel, and the Denmark Veseys, Nat Turners and Madison Washingtons of the Southern American States." 

- Osborne P. Anderson, Chapter 1

2. One (among many thousands of refugees from 1848 revolutionary Europe) iconic example of active, communist, Marxist participation in militant support for abolition and in particular for the "Union" was Joseph Weydemeyer. (Sam Marcy was fond of teaching Marx's March 1852 letter to Weydemer, which is included in many editions of "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" of that same year, as the best, succinct explanation of Marxism by Marx.) Weydemeyer was a military participant -- turned his gun around, in fact -- in the 1848 revolution targeting the Prussian aristocracy. He helped found the "League of Communists" in Frankfurt, was an intimate collaborator with Marx on numerous propaganda projects, fled to the U.S. in 1851 on the heels of counter-revolutionary repression, where shortly thereafter in 1853 he helped organize a mass meeting, mostly German emigres, in NYC's Mechanics Hall which founded the "American Workers League." His journalistic work leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War largely consisted of combating liberalism and promoting revolutionary, working class unity in the abolitionist movement. 

When war broke out, Weydemeyer immediately enlisted, organized thousands of like-minded revolutionaries to join the Union army, and became a lieutenant colonel, organized the construction of numerous fortifications around St. Louis, and became the commander of an artillery regiment that took on and defeated the violent diehards in Missouri whom John Brown and his sons had taken on a decade earlier at Osawatomie, Kansas.

After all, "People make their own history, but not always as they please."

#Marxism #civil war #reconstruction #white supremacy #Black Liberation #class struggle #revolution #socialism #communist #Karl Marx #Joseph Weydemeyer #John Brown #Osborne P Anderson #Harper's Ferry #abolitionist #slavery

[spicynbachili1]

The greatest facial hair to ever grace a screen belongs to Kurt Russell

When beards get severe, Kurt Russell will get seriouser

Each November a motion happens during which individuals elevate funds to assist help these battling most cancers by not shaving. There’s No-Shave November the place of us are inspired to place down the razor and as a substitute donate the month’s shaving funds to most cancers analysis or to these in want of monetary help as they undergo chemotherapy. Then there’s Movember, the place the main focus is on letting that lovely higher lip hair develop to assist elevate consciousness surrounding prostate and testicular most cancers, in addition to suicide. 

Whereas not one of the workers at Flixist are manly sufficient to develop any facial hair in any respect, in honor of this facially targeted month, we are celebrating our favourite completely groomed beards, mustaches, and Fu Manchus as seen all through cinema. To kick issues off, I current to you the one true best face fluff: Kurt Russell in Hateful Eight. 

“Grizzled” is the very best phrase to explain John “The Hangman” Ruth. His mustache solely amplifies his demeanor as he rides to assert the bounty of the recalcitrant Daisy Domergue. Ruth’s gloriously overflowing whiskers portend his inside angle. He is over-confident and direct, not one to draw back from confrontation or be the one to instigate it. He instructions consideration and the free-flowing facial fur solely bolsters the respect he feels he deserves. In a film with gruff outlaws and demise hiding across the nook, Ruth’s mustache has a je ne sais quoi that simply merely suits the bounty hunter’s aura. 

The Wonderful Mustache Gary (Remaining Area) – Sian Francis-Cox

Gary is a prisoner aboard the Galaxy One, a lonely spacecraft drifting via the void. Serving a 5-year sentence for destroying 92 star cruisers at a Mexican household restaurant (in an effort to impress the gorgeous however aloof pilot Quinn) – properly, life isn’t actually going nice for him. However when he meets Mooncake, a wonderful lil’ gumball of affection of an alien, who occurs to be a planet-destroyer and hunted by an evil overlord, issues begin to warmth up. And with a view to face what lies forward, Gary has to face what’s inside himself.

What’s inside himself occurs to be The Wonderful Mustache Gary, an infinitely superior imaginary iteration of Gary with a wealthy, thick, luscious mustache. He is aware of it. He flaunts it. He even has a tiny little comb to maintain it clear. A comb! The Wonderful Mustache Gary completely embodies all the things Gary desires to be in life, all the things he is aware of he should reside as much as, all the things he’s not. It’s a second of readability, an identification epiphany for Gary: realizing he’s solely human, and may solely be the Gary he’s proper now, mustache or no mustache.

It’s profound. It’s inspiring. And it’s what will get Gary able to face the final word evil. All I can say is that Olan Rogers can have my timeless affection for bringing The Wonderful Mustache Gary into existence.

All of The Dude’s Hair (The Huge Lebowski) – Drew Stuart

Lengthy, flowing, soiled blonde hair. A goatee, fairly unkempt. That is The Dude’s coiffure. And it is excellent. To The Dude, it says that he is a float form of man. He is all the way down to see your band subsequent Friday, and he does not even have to know what vices your lead singer has. Alternatively, he is a slacker. A loser. A halfwit. A numbskull. That is all properly and good too. It is the form of hair that matches in with a T-shirt or a gown. With a desecrated rug. With something, man….

The Dude’s hair is so iconic due to how ubiquitous it’s. Everybody is aware of The Dude. We have all met him, in his many alternative types. And his goatee, his lengthy flowing locks, are a lifeless giveway for somebody who’d favor something however The Eagles.

The Complete Solid of Tombstone’s Higher Lips (Tombstone) – Rick Lash

The wild, wild west. Whiskey. Mud. Gunfights. Gold! Ranches. Cattle. Whiiiiiiiiiskey. And mustaches, the deadliest mustaches that e’er lived. Positive, Tombstone is in regards to the increase and bust mining city of the 19th century, made singularly well-known by the Gun Combat on the O.Okay. Corral involving each Wyatt Earp and Doc Vacation. However extra so, it’s a few civilization constructed round facial ornamentation backed up with chilly metal and sizzling lead. In a world the place tempers ran excessive, fueled by a ne’er ending swimming pools of whiskey, a person might be judged not by his phrase or ethical fiber, however by the machismo, pomp, and circumstance of his whiskers.

Suppose on it. Each desperado, miner, card shark, bartender and cowboy on this movie is adorned with face fungus most distinguished. These soup-strainers are wild, gentle or organized rank and file. The face lace is available in all varieties, however their mannerisms imply, severe, lethal and don’t fuck with me. When a person crossing the road was as more likely to have a gunfight as attain the opposite aspect, one’s nostril bug was the primary line of protection in deterring the riffraff. Positive, the pistol in your hand despatched a message, however your finely trimmed (or careless and unkempt) taste saver backed it up. 

Henry Cavill’s Million Greenback Mustache (Mission: Not possible—Fallout, Justice League) – Chris Compendio

Anybody who is aware of me properly will probably not be stunned that I’m nonetheless far too obsessed over this absurdity. Any cultured moviegoer will keep in mind the predicament that ensued because of reshoots for Justice League and manufacturing of Mission: Not possible—Fallout, with Henry Cavill starring in each. Cavill sported facial hair for the latter movie, and the Superman we all know doesn’t sport any as such. A compromise between Justice League studio Warner Bros. and Mission studio Paramount had Cavill, facial hair and all, carry out as Superman, with stated facial hair being eliminated in post-production. The outcomes had been delightfully eerie, with Cavill trying like he was affected by extreme allergy symptoms at factors, and at some angles, showing as an unintentional John Travolta.

It is all humorous by itself, however what makes the story extra stunning is the truth that Paramount reportedly declined Warner’s provide of getting Cavill’s face shaven and masking the prices of getting CGI facial hair, which theoretically was extra sensible and cheaper, to not point out it in all probability would have appeared higher. However no, the stache needed to keep, as a result of… the facial hair was essential to Cavill’s character? I can solely think about Paramount executives making an attempt to stifle their snickers whereas on a convention name with Warner Bros., and I would wish to assume that this was a deliberate act of sabotage in opposition to Justice League, not that it wanted that yet another factor to make that movie even worse. Having seen, reviewed, and liked Fallout, I could not inform you why the facial hair was important for Cavill’s character of August Walker, however I assume it helped me to distinguish this character from Superman and his Man from U.N.C.L.E. undercover agent character. Cavill is a monster on this movie, a hulking cannonball of testosterone, so in a manner, maybe it was important.

Nonetheless, Warner Bros. may have saved some huge cash if they simply gave Superman a mustache.

Cesar Romero and The Unique Superhero Mustache Coverup (Batman) – Matthew Razak

Chris is manner off base together with his choose and that is due to the straightforward indisputable fact that Henry Cavill’s mustache controversy was merely a pale reflection of the unique superhero mustache kerfuffle. You see, again when the Batman TV collection was casting its Joker the producers wished Cesar Romero, he of the debonair appears and iconic mustache. It’s kind of of casting that on its face worth appeared off as Romero was a Hollywood heartthrob (Sound acquainted?). Romero agreed to play The Joker, however he refused to shave off that horny mustache. The answer? Paint over the factor. 

Here is the distinction between captain digital-no-stache up there, and Romero’s Joker: the unshaved mustache match completely into the splendidly odd and campy manufacturing that was each the Adam West Batman TV present and Batman film. The white mustache is the proper metaphor for the present’s deadpan supply of its distinctive model of madness. Not that we would realize it, however had the Joker not had a mustache he would have been lower than, regular, run-of-the-mill. Romero’s guffawing and manic interpretation of the clown prince of crime was good, but it surely was the not-so-hidden mustache that pushed it into true camp. How was this their resolution to this drawback? The reply, it seems, is as a result of it was the appropriate one. For that, it’s clearly the only best piece of facial hair identified to any display.

Groucho Marx’s Greasepaint Mustache (Marx Brothers movies) – Hubert Vigilla

The perfect cinematic facial hair doesn’t have to be actual. Groucho Marx’s iconic mustache is as pretend as a three-dollar invoice, however that’s by design. It’s facial hair that performs to a budget seats, which had been all paid for with three-dollar payments (I’ll inform you, that millionaire theater proprietor goes to change into a thousandaire very quickly, and a hundredaire by the point I get via with him.). The thick greasepaint mustache was pure serendipity. Groucho didn’t have time to placed on an actual fake-mustache earlier than a vaudeville present. As a fast repair, he painted on a pretend mustache, and a legendary look was born. All through the Marx Brothers’ basic movies, the stache was all greasepaint, on a regular basis. Later in life, Groucho Marx would develop an actual mustache, which might be seen clearly from a budget seats so long as these seats had been close to a TV.

The Groucho Marx look is so iconic that it gave delivery to Groucho Glasses. what they’re: thick-rimmed glasses, pretend eyebrows, pretend schnozz, and an actual fake-mustache. These ubiquitous tchotchkes allowed regular of us to change into the snarky, quip-a-minute nogoodnik everyone knows and love. Groucho Glasses additionally gave financial institution robbers who don’t have time for greasepaint a helpful disguise that might be bought on the nearest Cracker Barrel for a crisp three-dollar invoice.

Mr. Turtle and the Full Lack of Hair (The Grasp of Disguise) – Bradley Sexton

This complete matter was a trick query for those who ask me as a result of clearly, no hair is the very best form of facial hair. Why waste precious time sustaining an unsightly, itchy tuft of facial hair when you possibly can have a easy, clear look and a robust jawline as well. No, facial hair will get in the way in which of the golden ratio faces we anticipate our stars and starlets to have.

Because of this Dana Carvey as Mr. Turtle is the proper sort of facial hair. Not solely does he not have a beard or mustache, however he does not have any hair in any respect! Positive, he often is the most unfunny, obnoxious character in a film that perfected unfunny, obnoxious characters, however have a look at the shine on his head. You possibly can fry an egg on prime of that factor or rattle off a sick bongo solo. If he had hair, this scene could be silly, ugly and dumb as a substitute of simply silly and dumb.

Pei Mei’s Legendary Fu Manchu (Kill Invoice) – Jesse Lab

It stuns me how we have gotten to the ultimate entry on this checklist, but nobody determined to speak about Pei Mei and his legendary facial hair! It could not have value hundreds of thousands of , however I might argue that there is no such thing as a higher facial hair in existence than Pei Mei’s wonderful stache. I am tempted to not even name it a stache since there is a good lengthy white tendril rising down from his chin. In my books, Pei Mei has the very best mustache in addition to the very best beard. 

After which you will have his wonderful beard/stache flip. Let me set the scene for you. The Bride travels the world over to be skilled by Pai Mei, creator of the 5 Fingered Dying Punch. When she meets him, he berates her after which promptly kicks her ass. However that is nothing in comparison with… the flip. Laughing at her face, Pai Mei gently strokes his Fu Manchu and offers it a stable flip up, giving it just some seconds of hold time to actually rub it in her face. His mustache and beard combo turned the cinematic definition of badass facial hair. It is a look that may solely exist on display, by no means in actual life. THAT’S a film mustache.

You might be logged out. Login | Join

        Filed beneath…

from SpicyNBAChili.com http://spicymoviechili.spicynbachili.com/the-greatest-facial-hair-to-ever-grace-a-screen-belongs-to-kurt-russell/

[notesonthemodernspectacle]

25. Excerpts From The Spectacle And The Terror

The following paragraphs are taken from a huge essay I wrote on the relationship between the Situationist International, post-structuralism and terrorism. I think they are perhaps the best analysis I have produced in my attempt at understanding terrorism in the modern world. 

Sanguinetti takes the Situationist argument further in his work inspired by the Moro case, “On Terrorism And The State.” He makes a clear argument for the way in which the State can use the terrorists’ violence as a justification for its own violence and repression. Sanguinetti divides terrorism into offensive and defensive categories.  Offensive terrorism is that conducted by non-state actors, this is the terrorism that we generally think of, like the attacks on Paris last year. Defensive is that used by the state to increase its own power, Sanguinetti identifies this form of terror with that conducted by the Italian state during the Years Of Lead. As McKenzie Wark points out, for the Situationists both kinds of terror play into the state's hands, “The state that makes a spectacle of responding to a need for security need not answer to any other desires,” (Wark, 2015: 213). Sanguinetti ironically declared “Without the cruelty of the devil, the infinite kindness of God can not appear and be properly appreciated,” (Sanguinetti, 1979).  One can find some sympathy for the violence of the radical terrorists of the 1970s, in fact large amounts of the European population did (Aust, 2008: 42). They believed that what they were doing was the beginning of a revolution, that would break with how Europe lived. Yet, they failed. I believe the reason for this can be found in the Situationists critique of terrorism. That the violence they used, only played into the state’s hands. It allowed the radicals to become villains, and the state to become the protector of citizens. In allowing this narrative to be constructed, the terrorists allowed the system to become even more repressive. As Debord would go onto write in his commentary on his most famous book, “A perfect democracy constructs its own inconceivable foe, terrorism… The story of terrorism is written by the state and it is therefore highly instructive,” (Debord, 1990: 24).  

Crucially Foucault’s Spectacle differs from Debord’s in three ways, and each relate to how this different form of Spectacle can explain terrorism in the modern world.  Firstly, Foucault saw the direct connection between the sovereign power and the use of public execution. That is the direct link between the state and the Spectacle. For Foucault the scaffold represented the means by which the sovereign punished those who challenged their rule by breaking the law. Furthermore, a crucial point was that it was done in public, so that the people knew that such digressions would be punished, “But also by arousing feelings of terror by the spectacle of power,” (Foucault, 1991: 58).  This clearly shows that for Foucault the Spectacle was always linked the to the power of the state. This is in many ways similar to the way that the Situationists see the Spectacle as linked to the modern capitalist system. I also think that when it comes to the Situationists assessment of terrorism, Foucault’s analysis of the Spectacle is insightful.  The importance of a public viewing of terror, which ensured in pre-modern times the power of the state is seen in modern terrorism.  The power of both Spectacles would be lost without people being scared by it. I think that this highlights why the modern terrorist plays so much into the systems hands, rather than breaking with it as many, like the RAF would have liked. Terrorist not only attack the power of the sovereign by transgressing his laws, but they also attack the people. Whereas in the time Foucault describes the Spectacle of the scaffold, the people sometimes united with the criminal against the unjust sovereign power (Foucault, 1991: 64).  The terrorist unites the people with the state, in a quest for safety, through their own unjust terror. Secondly, Foucault states that "the modern rituals of execution attest to this double process: the disappearance of the spectacle and the elimination of pain," (Foucault, 1991: 11). However, while the state has become less violent in its use of terror, the rise of terrorism has returned violence to the heart of the Spectacle. This is an area of the Spectacle that I think the Situationist fail to explain to its fullest degree. However Foucault also does not make any connection between the violence of modern terror and the violence of his Spectacle for a crucial reason.

While they are in many ways criticising the same result, the conformity of the bourgeois order, Debord and Foucault disagree on the means by which this was achieved and maintained. This difference can be seen in the way that they analyse, Foucault in an archaeological manner, Debord in a creatively dialectically materialist manner.  Foucault’s surveillance systems are automatic functions of power and control. Like his Spectacle before it, the Panopticon is not just about punishment of criminals, but the wider control of society.  Debord’s Spectacle, on the other hand, does not come out of any genealogy of power and knowledge.  The Spectacle Debord portrays comes out of a detournement of Marx’s theory of value, and like capital for Marx, is perpetuated across society by its own constantly renewed movement. I agree with Lachenicht and Lindegger when they say that Foucault has overlooked the resilience of the Spectacle in modern society, “For while society may have become in part disciplinary, it has never ceased to be spectacular in its totality.” (Wark, 2015: 49).  As I have previously explored, terrorism is part of that spectacular society, a means by which the state can justify reinforcing its power. The means by which it exerts this power is through surveillance. The very height of panopticism in modern society must be the NSA and the other powerful surveillance bodies that have come into being during the War On Terror.  Thus, while critics of Foucault’s Panopticon analogy point out that very few prisons were ever built in such a style, they miss the point. It was not the prisons that were built in Bentham’s image, but society as a whole (Simon, 2005: 2).  However, though Foucault underestimated the Spectacle, and the Situationists were dismissive of the Panopticon, put together I think the two help explain terror in modern society. The two concepts help to, “Create a two-way social mirror in which all modern selves are both subject to surveillance and to potent images of the powerful,” (Lachenicht and Lindegger, 1997).  Thus, even when people break with the power of the Panopticon, committing acts of violence such as terrorism, they in fact enable the state to increase the very power they break with. Marx declared of the capitalist world, “All that is solid melts into air,” Foucault and Debord are both describing how the air, the very environment in which we live has been constructed to control (Marx, 2015: 6). No longer the solid force of the scaffold, replaced with invisible and diffuse forms of power. Foucault highlights the Panopticon, though never built, shows how in part society in the modern world functions. Debord equally convincingly argues that though the scaffolds were taken down, the spectacle spread like air across society.  What terrorism shows is that though modern society no longer needs the state to brutality display its violence, violence is still often used by the state as a means of control.  This is due to the fact, as I have previously explored, terrorism does not work as a counter-spectacle. I believe that Foucault’s conception of the Spectacle helps to make clear the relation of terrorism to the Spectacle in modern society.  Though he disagrees with the Situationists over the power of the Spectacle in the modern world, his explanations of the Spectacle as a violent means of state control in the past is insightful. Even more crucially, exploring Foucault's idea of the Panopticon, in the modern world allows for an insight into how terrorism fails to break with the Society Of The Spectacle.

September 11th 2001, one of the world’s leading living philosophers Slavoj Zizek reached for his copy of Debord’s Comments Of The Society Of The Spectacle (Acherman, 2014: 222). For Zizek the attacks on the World Trade Centre showed “The sublime immediacy … of a Spectacular event,” (Acherman, 2014: 221-222). Zizek’s analysis of 9/11 and the world after the event, line up with the vision the Situationists painted of society and terrorism. As Zizek says “What if the shattering experience of September 11th... enabled the hegemonic American ideology to... reasset its basic ideological coordinates,” (Zizek, 2002: 47).  This is very similar to what Debord and Sanguinetti had described decades earlier.  Zizek crucially describes the 9/11 attacks using the word “Sublime,” in doing so he references his own previous work “Sublime Objects of Ideology,” but also the work of Immanuel Kant. 

Kant, was interested in the aesthetic experience, he divided this between the beautiful and the sublime.  The beautiful, Kant explains is something joyous and pleasant, he connects it to common sense, to the way we sense things should be (Burnham, 2010). Sublime experiences, on the other hand, though still pleasurable are challenging to our understanding. They go against what we sense to be correct.  However, I think when Zizek discusses the attacks on the World Trade Centres, he has got his own analysis backwards. The attacks, in Kantian terms, were not sublime, they were much closer to being beautiful.  As Zizek points out, American culture is filled with such attacks from Hollywood to TV (Acherman, 2014 222).  Thus for the majority of Americans these attacks already were within a framework of understanding, as Zizek asks “Where have we seen the same thing over and over again?” (Zizek, 2002: 17).  American culture has glorified and sanitised such attacks. So while they could hardly be compared to a pleasant summer breeze or a flower bed, for many people they made some kind of sense. Especially when they were fitted into George W Bush’s cowboy persona and neoconservative morality.

#situationist #foucault #negri #red brigades #terrorism #zizek #9/11 #sublime #beautiful #bombs

[81scorp]

My Little thoughts on Slice of Life

(Originally posted as an editorial on Deviantart July 30, 2015. It has not been changed from how I originally wrote it.)

In 2010 Hasbro hired animator, writer and director Lauren Faust to breathe some new life into the My Little Pony franchise which, unlike fine wine had not aged well with time. Faust, a fan of the original show put together a team and based her version on the first generation of My Little Pony but put more emphasis on humor and gave the characters more in-depth personalities. The show was successful. So successful that it became popular outside of it`s target demographic and gained a following of young and middleaged men and women who call themselves "Bronies" and "Pegasisters". Aware of their unconventinal fans, the creators of the show sometimes put in a few nods to the older audience now and then. A while ago the show turned 100 episodes. That isn`t bad, it`s a good milestone for a show. At the hundredth episode the creators usually do something extra to celebrate that the show has lasted that long. Like: have a famous guest star, have two people who have been in love witch eachother for a long time finally get married or some other big thing. The 100th episode of My Little Pony Friendship is Magic gave us a fight between the main characters and a giant "Bugbear" (a cross between a bear and a bee) and a wedding between two donkey characters, helped by several ponies that usually just stay in the background. And of these two stories the episode focused on the latter. If what the creators did earlier was nods then the things they put in this episode counts as headbanging. Wether you like or dislike this episode I feel it`s worth talking about. So here are some of my little thoughts on the 100th episode: "Slice of Life". SPOILERS are magic

Derpy

I became aware of MLP FiM relatively late so I first found out about this crosseyed mare on fan art before I saw her in the show. I thought the idea of a silly, clumsy and ditzy pony sounded fun.When I saw Derpy in "The last roundup" I felt that it wasn`t bad... but it could have been better. Even if "I just don`t know what went wrong" is a cute catchphrase I felt like they may have relied a bit too much on the whole clueless and oblivious angle. Her voice almost sounded like she was supposed to be actually mentally challenged, combine that with her being oblivious to the disaster she creates and it makes her (to me at least) feel almost Jar Jar Binksian. I do like the later part of that scene though. Like when Rainbow Dash says to Derpy: "In the name of Celestia, just sit there and do nothing!" And Derpy does so and bad things still happen. That wasn`t her fault, just crappy wood. When people called Derpy a "controversial character" and wanted to get rid of her I remember the Simpsons episode where homer voiced the new character Poochie. There wasn`t anything wrong with Poochie per se (they could have toned down his EXTREME-ness a bit). In my constructive criticism of Phantom Menace I mentioned that unlike many others I didn`t feel that Jar Jar should be removed completely, but instead have the goofiness turned down a bit. Make him more competent but still kinda fun. "But hasn`t Derpy been portrayed like she was in `The Last Roundup` in fan comics?" Yes, but her being completely oblivious works better in non-official, non-canon standalone gags. Besides, not all ideas from the fandom are great ideas. Now, about Derpy in "Slice of Life". I liked it. This is a much better and more nuanced version of her personality. Smart enough to be aware of her surroundings but still keeping her silliness, clumsiness and childish side. In "The Last Roundup" Derpy sounded the way she did because Tabitha St Germain, her voice actress, thought that Derpy was a little boy. She voices Derpy again in this episode and her voice matches her personality perfectly. She`s like most Ponies, just a little ditzy. If Derpy was a bit "I am Sam" in "The Last Roundup" then "Slice of Life" makes her more of a "Forrest Gump". And yes, I know that her name in the credits was "Muffins". I`m not calling her Derpy because of some stubborn, fact-denying, fanboy refusal. But because I`m so used to calling her by that name. But I understand why the creators officially don`t call her by that name. I`m just glad they gave the character a second chance. Doctor Whooves

I like this character, but I have to admit it`s because how he`s portrayed in the fandom. I also have to admit it was fun that they made him as close to the Doctor as they could without infringing on copyright. Turns out he was inspired to become a scientist because of a childhood trauma. Not something I was expecting but I don`t mind a little backstory. Secret agent Sweetie drops

At first this felt odd because, to me, the world of Equestria feels like a simple world that doesn`t have all that secrecy and spy stuff like in Captain America: Winter Soldier. Personally I wouldn`t have made her a secret agent but instead just an ordinary pony who had lived in a different town a few years ago, a town that had been destroyed by the Bugbear. And since that day she had been searching for the Bugbear to get revenge. But I guess I can understand why they made her a secret agent. It allowed them to call her Bonbon, the name that the fans call her, while still calling her Sweetie drops, her official name. But now that I think about it, secret agents and spy stuff doesn`t seem that farfetched. In "MMMystery on the Friendship Express" Pinkie thought that Donut Joe was a secret agent. Technically it was just her imagination, but it shows that the concept of spies and secret organisations is not as alien to the world of MLP FiM as I first thought. Let`s not forget other stuff that feels closer to our world than a kind, friendly, fantasy-esque world with talking, singing ponies. Like video games (Hearts and Hooves Day) and cities with names like Fillydelphia and Manehattan. Manehattan feels different from the rest of the world of MLP FiM and closer to our own with it`s name, modern architecture, ponies in suits wearing earpieces and New Yorkish inhabitans. So technically, it`s not the existence of secret agents in Equestria that I find odd, but rather these two things:1: Bonbon being a secret agent. 2:This line: "Every last shred of evidence of the organization's existence was destroyed. Celestia demanded complete deniability." Princess Celestia, the wise, benevolent ruler of Equestria having a Nick Fury-ish side that hides big secrets from her subjects? You`d expect something like this from something like DCAU or Avengers: Earth`s Mightest Heroes, but in a show about magic, talking ponies? It feels like someting from a fan-parody. Hard to swallow, but at least it`s funny. From what I`ve heard, Bonbon being a secret agent was based on a fan theory, that I wasn`t aware of before watching this episode, that tries to explain why her voice sounds different in some episodes.When it comes to ponies with inconsistent voices in the show, my own theories are less dramatic. I just assume that they caught a cold the other day and... they`re just a little hoarse.

*Ba-dum-tish!* Vinyl and Octavia

These two ponies are a perfect example of the Odd Couple trope. One is calm, sophisticated and into classical music and the other one is more into modern, technological, rythm-based music. In many ways polar opposites but still willing to meet eachother halfway. Am I Okay with Vinyl being mute? Yes. It kinda makes her a Harpo Marx character, and characters who speaks little to not at all can be a lot of fun. Like: Harpo Marx, Wall-E, Mr Bean and Silent Bob. Would I have been OK if Vinyl talked and wasn`t voiced by Nowhacking? Yes I would. Even if it is fun that the fandom sometimes influences the show it`s not like they control it with an iron hand.

Gummy being deep

This part... this part... While it may change our view of this gator as an empty headed reptile it technically does not go against continuity. In this episode he sat with a vacant stare like he always does, the difference is that this time we got to hear his thoughts while he was doing it. But still... this part... this part... I don`t know what is real anymore. The changeling and Steven Magnet

From what I understand Steven Magnet`s name was based on something from the fandom. Before I watched this I wasn`t aware of that and just saw it as a callback to the first episode. I felt the changeling was also a callback, sort of a way for the writer to say "You remember these episodes? I just wanted to show you that I remember them too." I liked the part when Steven cut of a piece of his moustache to give to Cranky. Besides being a callback it also showed that he had grown as a person, putting his friends happiness over his own looks. But what was the deal with the changeling? Hello? A member of a race that tried to take over your world a while ago is just sitting there in broad daylight! Sure, he`s not harming anyone, just minding his own business. But still! Celestia and Luna From what I understand this is how they have been portrayed in fanfics and fancomics. But you don`t have to have seen any of those to enjoy it. Celestia and Luna have, up to this episode, always been portrayed as royal and nigh flawless (with a few exceptions) and we`ve never seen them interact with eachother in a more natural, sisterly way. So the humor in this scene works.

I think this is a divisive episode. Some people will hate it for the same reasons that others love it. Wether you love it or hate it I think that both sides can agree that it`s full of pandering. I can see how fun it is when the show takes ideas from the fandom (and I`m not just talking about MLP here, though MLP is where we see most of it), it makes the fans feel like they`re being listened to. Personally it`s not THAT important to me that a show or comic borrows heavily from the fans, only that they sometimes listen to constructive criticism. From what I`ve learned there`s at least two versions of a beloved show or comic. There`s the official canon by the creators and the fan-canon. I can use Ranma 1/2 by Rumiko Takahashi as an example. In the manga there`s a character named Ryoga Hibiki who has no sense of direction, he always gets lost on his travels. Before I read the manga I read a lot of fanfics where the writers exaggerated his "lostness" to the point of teleportation. (If he was in Japan in one minute he could end up Mexico the next, with no idea of how he got there.) Should Rumiko Takahashi have put this in her manga to lessen the difference between fan-canon and the official manga? No. The manga is fine as it is, and sometimes the fanfics tended to flanderize the characters, like I said: not all ideas from the fandom are great ideas. Not that taking ideas from the fandom is inherently wrong, or inherently right. When it comes to MLP FiM the close relationship between the creators and the fans has worked relatively well so far. A thought I have about the episode is that the ponies have a bit skewed priorities. A giant monster attacks their town and the most important thing is a wedding? I can understand Cranky and Matilda`s logic, a sort of "do something important that you`ve procrastinated long enough now that the town is being destroyed" kind of thing. But the other ponies? Oh well I guess it`s kind of a double meaning of the title: monster attacks has happened so often that they`re used to it. For them, it`s tuesday. Probably also explains why they didn`t panic over the changeling. Another thing that justifies the ponies priorities: there was very little to no destruction of buildings (sure, this is a kid`s show, but still). I guess the mane six (in some scenes at least) managed to direct the fight away from populated areas. Take notes, Goyer and Snyder, you might actually learn someting. This episode was built on a lot of ideas from the fandom. If you`re a fan who don`t keep up with the latest MLP fan-theories, memes and jokes, can you still enjoy it? I`d like to think so. It`s almost like that episode of The Simpsons when all the minor characters got a chance to be in the spotlight (except Professor Frink). Even if you don`t know about the characters and how they are usually portrayed in the fandom you can still enjoy the comedy of this episode. What did I think? Was this a great episode? I dunno. The pandering kinda works as a double edged sword. I still kinda like how it is aware of what it`s doing with that shark-jumping scene. In my opinion the greatest episode is still "Twilights Kingdom". Not just because of the Dragonball Z action but also because of the high stakes, Discord`s character development, Celestia, Luna and Cadence making themselves vulnerable by giving their magic to Twilight who later grows into her role as a princess. Plus: We got a scene where all the three princesses together sang a song to Twilight about how one day she`d get her chance to shine. Was Slice of Life good? Objectively? It feels more funny than good, at least it has humor for the casual viewers who aren`t familiar with the world. Since it is hard for me to be completely objective I can`t really say if this episode is objectively good or not. The only thing I can say with complete certainty and honesty is if I liked it or not. So, did I like "Slice of life"? Yes. Vinyl and Octavia`s musical collaboration was pretty sweet, and sorry for sounding like a Derpy fanboy, but some of my favourite parts were the ones with Dr Whooves and Derpy. I liked that they gave a second chance to a pony that got of to a rocky start. I`d be lying if I said that I didn`t squee on the inside when she hugged Dr Whooves. Keep calm and trot on.

#mlp #fim #my little pony #friendship is magic #editorial #81scorp

[jonnyopinion]

A Case of the Mondays

My alarm went off at 4:30 this morning. It was Monday (still is, in fact). The sky was grey, though this being July, it was at least light. I lay there for a time, coming back to awareness of my body, of who and where I was - and, to a lesser degree, why.  This is normal: too normal for further remark. Millions and millions of humans wake up every Monday morning to their preset of alarms, compelled by economic necessity to wake earlier than we would probably choose to otherwise.

In his famous essay from 1967, Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism [pdf] E. P. Thompson writes:

"Those who are employed experience a distinction between their employer's time and their 'own' time.  And the employer must use the time of his labour and see it is not wasted: not the task but the value of time when reduced to money is dominant.  Time is now currency: it is not passed but spent."

Time is money, as we know.  Marx's insight that wage-labour is fundamentally alienating is as true now for anyone on a 40-hour-a-week minimum-wage job as it was for the industrial workers of the mid-19th century he inspired - despite the many improvements in working conditions, rights, and employment laws that have been won in the intervening years by worker and labour organisations, even long after the words "communist" and "socialist" has slipped into use as little more than pejoratives.  No matter how pleasant and "flexible" your working conditions may be, how sympathetic your boss may have become to your needs and rights, the time you spend working at your "job" is no more your own than it was before such things as the minimum wage, maternity leave, occupational health assessments or paid holidays.  Your value is measured in the time spent on the work assigned to you.  The harder you work - the more hours you "put in" - the greater your reward.  Stress, depression, the psychologically unhealthy glorification of egoistic, aggressive and inhumane competitiveness, the inevitable negative side effects of involuntary work can all be brushed away as necessary evils when considered in the context of financial gain. Alarm clocks have been with us for centuries.  The 'snooze' function is a much more recent development.  That's something worth mentioning.

With the emergence of the "gig economy", far less has actually changed than its promoters would have us believe.  The phenomenon is an absolute triumph for spectacular capitalism: it creates the illusion of self-employment, of freedom, of maximum flexibility, while in reality condemning the economically disposable masses to longer hours, lower pay, and fewer of the rights most non-gig economy employees can take for granted; not to mention the higher-risk, lonelier and less reliable conditions that result from your income being more or less contingent on how many people within a 5-mile radius fancy a pizza.  Uber, Deliveroo, and their many, many competitors all get away with this by having their workers as "independent contractors", rather than true employees: paid volunteers, in effect.  Or perhaps not, as volunteers don't usually volunteer 70 hours a week of their time to do something they don't actually enjoy.

Fear this man.

This isn't a call to reform, regulate or ban the likes of Uber.  Such services succeed because their is demand for them, because they provide something more efficiently than their pre-gig economy equivalents, and because they work.  The market will allow for nothing else but this; this "efficiency".  This much I understand, and I understand enough not to get into the mud-slinging pointlessness of "capitalism boo" vs. "socialism yay" arguments, but the intricacies of the economics, I'm afraid, are lost on me.  Fortunately, this is all a digression, and I'm more interested here in the illusion than the reality.  It is the illusion, I think, that is far more dangerous than any of the (perfectly legitimate) concerns about working conditions, job security, or rights.

The illusion is this.  That work, however efficient, however rewarding (financially or otherwise) is intrinsically valuable, and something to aspire to.  That to want not to work, even if it makes your life materially poorer - in fact, knowing that this will be the result, is perverse.  That the unemployed are lazy by definition; a social scourge, rather than the source of some of its greatest role models.  The cockney rhyming slang for "dole" was "rock and roll".  That's something worth mentioning, too. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); In the classic anti-work comedy Office Space, cubicle-bound everyman protagonist Peter Gibbons finds himself stuck in a paradoxical kind of post-hypnotic clarity when his hypnotherapist suddenly collapses and dies before being able to complete the session.  For almost the entire film thereafter, he lives with the singularity of purpose that comes with total indifference to the consequences of his actions, but motivated by the contempt he feels for his employers, and had been suppressed by the requirements of professionalism and adult respectability.  Just before going under hypnosis, Peter explains: 

"So I was sitting in my cubicle today and I realized that ever since I started working, every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So it means that every single day you see me, that's on the worst day of my life".

And implores the therapist:

"Is there any way that you can just, sort of, just zonk me out, so that I don't know that I'm at work?  Could I come home, and think that I'd been fishing all day, or...something?"

More than the desire for revenge, for revolution, against our "bosses", I think, we 21st century proles (and that's all we are, don't let the narrative of being "middle class" fool you, there is no such thing) is driven by the desire for an inner kind of revolution.  A spiritual revolution, if you must.  (Capitalists gonna capitalise).  It is the desire to be free not only from meaningless paid employment but from the experience of one-dimensional, linear, economic time.  Raoul Vaneigem's "one huge instant...without the experience of 'time passing'."

It's been a while since I worked on a Monday.  I've managed to adjust my life(style) such that I now only need to work 15-20 hours a week, on average, to make ends meet.  (The secret is just in having fewer ends).  This still isn't good enough.  Today I went into the office for 9am.  9am on a Monday morning, just like millions and millions of others.  I didn't want to be there, but I was, because of circumstance.  A widely-reported recent study claimed that for anyone to start work before 10am is akin to the "torture" of sleep-deprivation.  Alarm clocks are instruments of torture.  We keep them next to our beds.  When they don't go off and we sleep in as nature intended, there'll be someone out there in the waking world waiting for our apology.  These people are not your friends.

There are several threads in this post I could draw together into a satisfactory conclusion, but I'm not going to do that.  I left the office at lunchtime today, because I can.  Now I'm sitting in a cafe, finishing off this paragraph, and when I've done that, I'm going home for a nap.  I'm not ashamed of this, in fact I'm proud of it, though society still has a long way to go before we make it the Utopia we idlers dream of; but for now it's enough to live in a world of semi-abundance where such a thing is even possible.  Workers of the world, sleep!

Follow @apossibleworld

****** Please consider disabling your adblockers when reading this site.  I make every effort to ensure no inappropriate, rubbish or offensive advertising appears here, and nothing that is contrary to the spirit of this blog.  So it's really nothing to be afraid of.  Cheers. from Blogger http://ift.tt/2u9TsXa via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger