#and the contributing factors and context of those choices matter so much more

[anghraine]

This is unnecessarily long, but: I was just thinking about Wickham's predation on fifteen-year-old Georgiana Darcy and then, almost exactly a year later, Wickham's predation on sixteen-year-old Lydia Bennet.

There are obvious parallels between the two incidents. In fact, they're so obvious that I think the incidents are sometimes treated as equivalent, with the consequences only differing by happenstance. I don't think that's true, personally.

There are some mechanistic sort of differences—Wickham put a lot more effort and planning into the Georgiana situation. He wanted to marry her for her money and to make her brother suffer. She had to be isolated from people who would look out for her interests, he had Mrs Younge in place, he had known Georgiana as a child and was able to exploit his own previous kindness to her as her father's godson, etc.

And Georgiana, despite all of this, and despite being swept away by a teenage infatuation with an extremely attractive man, was still uncomfortable with it. She was worried about disappointing a brother who raised her and whom she deeply loves and admires. When her brother actually showed up by surprise, she decided to tell him everything; Darcy takes pains to give her credit for this. Adaptations generally downplay Georgiana's active decision-making here, but the only element of chance is Darcy deciding to go to Ramsgate at all. He insists that he was only able to act because Georgiana chose to tell him what was going on.

This isn't meant to be an indictment of Lydia, though. Does she admire the parents who raised her? No. But why would she? Especially why would she admire a father who treats her mother and sisters and herself with profound contempt and no sense of responsibility? Why would she ever confide in him?

It's not like Lydia doesn't confide in anyone. In fact, she too confides in an older sibling, her sister Kitty. And in one sense, her trust in Kitty is not undeserved. Kitty does keep the secret. Presumably, she does this because, despite her occasional annoyance with Lydia, she is very much under her influence and goes along with whatever Lydia does. Regardless, she is trustworthy in that sense. Moreover, we see at the end of the book that Kitty is easily improved by being placed in better environments and taught how to behave. She just didn't know better.

How was she going to judge Lydia's situation correctly? Who was teaching her to judge anything correctly? Certainly not their parents.

If Mr Bennet had bothered to interest himself in his younger daughters and try and influence them for the better, impressionable Kitty is probably the one who would have benefited the most. The whole Lydia/Wickham thing would have fallen apart before it went anywhere if all the girls had been been properly raised, even if Lydia did exactly the same things.

And Lydia likely wouldn't do the same things if she'd been brought up properly and, you know, treated with a baseline of respect rather than being openly mocked by her father, the person most able to affect her development. Instead, at barely sixteen, she's been continually rejected by her father, over-indulged by her mother, and flattered by adult men (28-y-o Darcy says he and Wickham are nearly the same age). And she still tells someone what's going on, even though she doesn't care about her parents' opinions or the consequences of her actions. And she was under the protection of a colonel and his wife at the time, who also could have told someone or acted, and didn't.

It's not that nobody could have done anything about the Lydia/Wickham situation. It's that nobody did until Darcy found out and tried to extract her. But it was, in one sense, too late. To Lydia, he's just some unfun acquaintance who says boring things like "go home to your family and I'll do what I can to cover for you." That is, he tries to do what he did for Georgiana.

But Lydia is not Georgiana—she did not choose to tell him about any of this. She did not want to be extracted because she didn't know and couldn't be quickly made to understand what marriage to Wickham would mean in the long term. And she didn't care what her family thought because she had no reason to, pragmatically or psychologically.

Georgiana, otoh, did care about her family's welfare and the good opinion and affection of the head of her family. But despite their radical differences in personality, the most fundamental difference between the girls IMO is that Georgiana had every reason to believe that disappointing Darcy and losing his respect would be a change from the norm.

Normally he is affectionate and attentive towards her. They write each other long letters, he defends her to other family members, and praises her frequently. Georgiana, quiet and intimidated though she may be, talks more when he's around. Disappointing him had actual stakes for her.

Put another way, the potential loss of his good opinion mattered to her because he's gone to the trouble of raising her as well as he can and forming a good relationship with her. She chose to tell Darcy the whole thing because he had earned her affection and trust in a way that Mr Bennet has utterly failed to do. Even Darcy happening to visit Georgiana at Ramsgate comes from his affection and attention to Georgiana's welfare, even if he couldn't have known what would follow from checking on his sister at that particular moment.

Chance is always part of life, and it's part of the novel and these situations. But a lot of how these scenarios wound out was not determined by chance but by long-existing patterns in these girls' educations and relationships.

#this actually spun off from a different post about the contrast between darcy and mr bennet #they're alike in some ways but it only makes the differences all the more glaring #and i don't think we see that more than in how they conduct themselves towards the young girls in their care #and in the drastic consequences of how they educate and relate to those girls #georgiana and lydia made choices but there's a point at which harping on choice!!! and personal responsibility!! doesn't have much value #and the contributing factors and context of those choices matter so much more #anghraine babbles #long post #austen blogging #austen fanwank #georgiana darcy #lydia bennet #fitzwilliam darcy #george wickham #mr bennet #catherine bennet #some unflattering references to mrs bennet but this is more of a mr bennet hate post :)

[cre8iveskills]

The Types of Vector File Formats and Their Applications

The advancement of visual and art creation technologies in recent years has substantially changed the conventional ways of creating artwork. In today's visual-centric world, where the fascinating charm of beautiful visuals and artworks is no longer limited to luxury and opulence but has become a necessity for graphic artists, the artwork and image vectorization technique's contribution in this context is very special. Vector files may be used for a wide range of purposes and creative projects, especially those that require scalable graphics, such as the creation of brand logos, promotional products, signs, labels, etc.

Vectors are based on mathematical equations and made up of lines, curves, and shapes that can be scaled up or down without losing their original quality. Given the outstanding flexibility of vector graphics, these sorts of files are increasingly becoming the preferred choice for professional graphic and UX/UI designers.

So, if you are just getting started in the design world or know very little about graphics and want to learn about the essentials of vector graphics, their uses, and everything else about vectors, continue reading this article.

Let's Learn About A Vector File In More Details

You might be wondering what makes vectors special. Well, technically speaking, a vector file is often composed of mathematically defined curves, shapes, and lines. Since each route, curve, or line is based on its own formula, the formula will keep the quality and sharpness of each patch even if they are scaled infinitely, giving the graphic or design a sharp appearance. This makes vectors truly efficient, as your artwork needs to be both clear and eye-catching in a number of different circumstances and situations.

What Are The Factors That Make Vector Art So Advantageous?

While working digitally, digital artworks are generally classified into two types: raster and vector. Specifically, rasters are used in digital photography, from photos captured on digital cameras to online JPEGs. Vectors, on the other hand, are ideal for a wide range of digital illustrations, such as animations, corporate logos, fashion graphics, and so on. Cause for this, the demand for raster to vector conversion services is progressively rising day by day. Let's take a look at some of the unique characteristics of vector files that give you several advantages when using them.

Infinite Scalability

The most significant benefit of vectors is their sharpness and clarity; no matter how much they are resized, they always look as clean as the original.

They Are Easier To Edit

Vector illustrations can be easily modified or manipulated in terms of color, shapes, sizes, and even layout as per project requirements. You may also add texts and other different elements to vector files.

Vector Graphics Are Detailed And Precise

Vectors enable the creation of illustrations, logos, charts, and even blueprints, data graphs, and technical drawings that look precise as well as realistic. This can be achieved as vector software lets you move an object accurately through coordinates, along vertical and horizontal axes, and bend it with mathematical precision.

Types Of Vector File Formats

Vector file types can be saved, processed, and exported in a variety of forms, each of which serves a unique purpose. Every format has distinct features and qualities that determine how it may be transmitted across platforms. Let's check out the most common vector file formats.

Encapsulated PostScript (EPS)

EPS files are one of the most popular vector file types, featuring two-dimensional vector drawings, bitmap images, and text. In terms of advantages, the EPS format is a standard means of exporting vector drawings; it is highly compatible with older and newer versions of design software such as Adobe Illustrator and many others; and it can be used for vector graphics modification without losing data. On the downside, the format does not support transparent backgrounds like other advanced formats.

Adobe Illustrator (AI)

Adobe Illustrator artwork file format, or simply AI file format, is another widely used vector file format in recent years and the native file format of Adobe Illustrator, the world's most popular vector graphic creation and editing software. AI files are an excellent choice for creating infographics, logos, printing designs, and other vector graphics. Also, the format lets you save any transparent parts of the original artwork, and you can scale them up indefinitely without compromising quality. The biggest downside of the AI format is that its file sizes typically tend to be larger than those of other file types. This Adobe Illustrator software is available for download at this location

CorelDRAW Image File (CDR)

The CDR file format is developed by CorelDRAW and can consist of text, lines, shapes, and other vector components. The format is primarily useful for producing logos, icons, web pages, illustrations, icons, flyers, and much more. CDR files with the suffix CDR are intended for usage with CorelDRAW and other graphic editing software. You can access this coreldraw software by downloading it from here.

Vector Graphics Are Highly Effective For

Vectors, with their infinite scalability and transfer-friendly characteristics, are ideal for various graphic projects, including digital printing, 2D or 3D computer animations, illustrations, infographics, internet-based video content, and much more. They are a great option for large prints since they lack pixels; whether you want to print the designs on paper, cloth, or vinyl, the final outputs are often smoother and cleaner. Moreover, vector-based graphics are especially valuable for branding and marketing content. Some other unique applications of vector files

Images For Websites

With the changes in website creation, web designers are looking for an ideal image type that preserves its integrity on different screens of any size. Since vector images are resolution-independent, they are perfect for usage in responsive designs, where the image size is determined by the electronic device utilized.

Logo and symbol Design

A high-quality, distinctive logo is very crucial for every brand. Utilizing vectors for the creation of the company's logo ensures that it is designed in the highest quality possible for sharing across the web and other multiple platforms.

Designs For Clothing

Nowadays, the textile and fashion industries must function more efficiently and quickly, and selling apparel with murky designs is no longer practical. So, it is essential to use excellent design techniques, such as vectors, to make sure all design features are as sharp as possible.

Bottom line

Types of Vector files, with their intriguing properties and boundless scalability, offer substantial advantages in a wide range of applications. Although there are many different types of files, it is always best to stick with the native format of whatever design program you are using and choose file types that correspond to the requirements of your artwork projects.

Nevertheless, when it comes to large-scale vector projects, it's crucial to partner with a reputable agency like Cre8iveSkill. These vendors possess vast industry knowledge, skill sets, and efficiency to handle your project quickly and efficiently. We are committed to offering top-notch vector art services at the most competitive market costs by complying with the most severe standards of quality assurance to ensure our clients' complete satisfaction.

Source: https://www.cre8iveskill.com/blog/the-types-of-vector-file-formats-and-their-applications

#Cre8iveSkill #Types Of Vector File Formats #Vector File Formats #Vector File #Vector Graphics #Vector File Types #CDR File #AI File #EPS Files #Vector Art Services #Raster To Vector Conversion

[whimsicaldragonette]

ARC Review: Kids' Nonfiction for April 2023 - Our Changing World Edition

*Summaries, Ratings, and Reviews for both books below the cut.

Evolution Under Pressure: How We Change Nature and How Nature Changes Us by Yolanda Ridge

Preorder

Add to Goodreads

Publication Date: April 25, 2023

Synopsis:

Immersive non-fiction with STEM and social justice themes that proves that the future of the environment is in our hands–and helps pave the way forward. Evolution isn’t just a thing of the past. It is happening right now, in every species across the world–and our influence on the future of the plants and animals around us is much bigger than we might think. A closer look at the science behind evolution shows how human behaviors like hunting, farming, and urban development have contributed to major physical changes in everything from rhinos to pigs to lizards. And these changes impact us in turn–triggering environmental shifts and contributing to climate change. The good news is there’s hope: by learning to see how everything is connected, we can weigh the consequences of our choices and help shape a world that works for plants, animals, and humans alike. Making connections across anthropology, biology, and ecology, award-winning author Yolanda Ridge takes an intersectional approach to a challenging topic–examining the factors that influence human behavior while looking forward to explain the changes we can make and the ethics of those choices. Profiles of young activists and innovators highlight the ways readers can contribute to restoring ecological balance, while vibrant illustrations by Dane Thibeault evoke the energy and beauty of the natural world we are working to preserve.

My Rating: ★★★★★

My Review:

This is an excellent introduction for kids age 8 and up to evolution and the way humans impact it and the planet. There is a lot of very good information here, and it is presented in a clear and easy-to-understand way. All of the information presented is vital to understanding our world and our place in it and very important for kids and teens to know. It provides specific examples of ways humans have altered the world and animals around us, predictions of what will happen if we continue to do so without thought for the consequences, and ideas for ways to mitigate the damage. It also provides just enough of the relevant science to give a deeper understanding of each point. It runs the risk of being very depressing, but I think there is enough of a message of hope at the end to alleviate most of that. Definitely something to be aware of though, if your kid is sensitive (like mine). I will be reading it with him and helping to provide context, more information, and reassurance as we read. Topics tackled include urbanization, poaching, the rise of agriculture and industry, climate change, genetic modification and gene editing, and, of course, evolution and natural selection. This would be great as an introduction to the topics for elementary students (especially those who are interested in science) and a refresher for older students or to be taught alongside more in-depth material on the subject matter. It would also be great as an introduction for adults who are not well-versed in science. I just finished reading this to kiddo (8) as a break from the series we've been binge-re-reading at bedtime and he was VERY into it. We read it over the course of three nights. He listened, engrossed, each night and then chattered about what he had learned from it to me and his dad the next day. He has always been very into nonfiction, especially science books, and he loves animals, but I suspect many kids his age and a bit older would really enjoy this.

*Thanks to NetGalley and Annick Press for providing an early copy for review.

-----------

Climate Warriors: Fourteen Scientists and Fourteen Ways We Can Save Our Planet by Laura Gehl

Preorder

Add to Goodreads

Publication Date: April 4, 2023

Synopsis:

Who do you think of when you imagine a climate scientist? Maybe a biologist? Or a chemist? But economists study the climate too!

Meet fourteen different scientists who are working to solve the climate crisis and the surprising ways they are doing it. Along with explanations of different areas of science and the many ways scientists are working to save the climate, readers will find tips for how they too can work for change. Climate Warriors informs young readers and gives them the tools they need to make a difference.

Author and neuroscientist Laura Gehl introduces readers to these incredible scientists, the projects they are working on, and what inspired them to choose their fields of study. From ecology to civil engineering, computer modeling to food science, we have lots of ways to combat climate change. Along with explanations of different areas of science and climate solutions, find out what you can do to make a difference.

My Rating: ★★★★★

My Review:

Kiddo listened, engrossed, as we read this at bedtime. Whenever I paused to see if he was ready to put the book down and sleep he would say "Why are you hesitating? Read another one." Which, to me, says he was definitely enjoying it. It was great to read about what scientists from different disciplines are doing about climate change. There were many that you don't usually hear about, like economists. The text was written at a level my third grader could understand with minimal explanations and he definitely found it interesting. I also really liked the "what you can do" sections at the end of each chapter, with suggestions for what individuals and children can do to help with fighting climate change. The whole book felt very empowering. It was very much "yes, this is a major problem and an urgent one, but there is still a chance to change things" Kiddo says "I liked everything about it." I would definitely recommend this to all upper-elementary school students. Maybe 3rd grade and up. And younger students who are interested in science and have the vocabulary and background to understand the text. *Thanks to NetGalley and Millbrook Press for providing an early copy for review.

#arc review #netgalley #laura gehl #yolanda ridge #evolution #climate change #kids' books #kids' nonfiction #our changing world #evolution under pressure #climate warriors #shilo reads

[just-like-playing-tag]

Is it just me or does Norman's relationship with the Lambda kids seem kinda weird? For example, he is constantly burning down factory farms, therefore killing the children inside them, yet Jin and Hayato, who are from factory farms, don't seem to care. Idk about you, but I would be at least a little upset if someone I trusted killed a bunch of my peers. Did Norman just not tell Jin and Hayato about burning the farms, or are they in a weird toxic situation where they think Norman can do no wrong?

MMMMMMHHH ok I get that the Norman burning farms keeps being problematic, and I know that people despise him for that. My personal take on the matter is that he really thought he had no other choice, and the other Lambda kids thought the same. In chapter 113, Norman explicitly states that there's nothing they could do to save them, for removing the devices from the children would cause their dath. At least to their eyes, there was nothing they could do to save the mass-production kids, and when the only option was them being eaten by demons, burning the farms probably felt like an act of mercy. And it's not like Norman was ok with it- as I've said before, I consider Norman to be an extraordinary emphatic person, and it's pretty clear looking at chapter 113 how it phisically hurt him to see those children suffer and to cause their deaths.

On the other hand, I won't deny that the relationship between Norman and his close circle of Lambda subordinates (including Hayato and Jin) is... Complicated to say at least. I've talked about it a little here already if you'd like to check it out. Overall I still stand by my statement that it was not anyone's fault for it being like it was, they were just a group of people that met in very unfortunate circumstances that didn't help them grow an healthy relationship. First of all, much of their coming together was for their common hatred towards a group end their desire to kill them all which is... Definitely not something that helps build and healthy bond, you know. Reading the interactions between Norman and the others, it's particularly disturbing how cold and emotionless he is towards them, and it's all the more striking when compared to how warm and gentle Norman is towards his GF family. I mean even in chapter 145, when he was supposed to reassure them that they won't die, it sounds more like a "this is my plan so it's impossible for anything to go differently from what I predicted, so you won't die." It's not a speech of a friend, it's a speech of a leader- and that's the whole point! In a moment of deep insecurity and unstableness, after having been abandoned of all the firm point of their lives, the Lambda group needed a strong, stable point to rely on. It's not like they asked him to guide them, it was probably more about everyone subconsciously taking on a role: Norman, who has remarkable wits and good leader abilities, became their boss, and the other Lambda people became soldiers that could rely on him. Since in this context there isn't any difference of status between the highest authority and his subordinates, it's natural that the Lambda peers were ok with their roles: after all, finding their place within a system is often considered a reassuring factor for people. Again, this separation was dictated by the circumstances: in a different context, Norman would have had no need to lead them, and they could have just been, you know... Friends. Instead in this case the distance between Norman and the others grew to be bigger and bigger: I'm guessing that for his gentle nature, Norman wanted to fit the best he could in the role of a strong leader, but that made him become cold and stone hearted, someone who, being the one everyone relies on, can't rely on anyone, because that's his role. Again nobody asked him to- I guess Norman is just like that. I'm not saying either he liked to act that way (he most likely didn't), but still did because he thought that was what the others needed.

I think I got lost along the way, but the point I wanted to make is: I think the Lambda group doesn't work as a group of friends simply because... Until chapter 153 Norman doesn't act as their friend, but as their leader / emperor: I believe that for a friend group to be healthy and balanced everyone needs to feel equal to the others, and that clearly isn't a thing in that environment. I like to underline that, excluding Norman, the Lambda squad is pretty cohesive and makes a nice group of friends (I mean chapters 123/138 even imply that Vincent, Barbara and Cislo hang out together which is... Honestly heartwarming 🤧); it's just that Norman wasn't part of that group to start with. (A pretty visual depiction of it:)

But... At the same time, that doesn't mean he never will? As soon as Norman stops feeling like he needs to be a god™, and as soon as everyone else realizes they have to treat him as the human he is, I really believe they can become friends in the healthy way of the term pfft. And the manga put very nice basis for such development: most notoriously the chapter 154 Cislo speech, but I also consider very important for Vincent's character growth the moment in chapter 168 where he stops calling Norman "boss" and starts addressing him with his name (for real, it's such an emotional moment: it's Vincent chosing to sacrifice himself not for his leader, but for his friend).

So yeah to sum up: Norman's relationship with the Lambda group is pretty unbalanced and not what I would define an healthy friendship, but that is something that can happen when the environment you live in is hostile, and it's really nobody's fault (like, for real- life lesson between the lines lol). That doesn't mean that they can not be friends once they've overcome their differences, and I personally think, once in the human world, they'll be friends who love and support each other <3

I answered all of that not knowing there was a part 2 attached rip.

Ok now I've talked a little about what I think of Vincent and Norman relationship and Vincent “buttler” role here. Overall, I guess that even if you're a very smart person yourself, thinking there's someone who holds all the answers and can give you solution to any problem is still a very compelling concept. For real peoples, it shouldn't be so surprising... These kids live in a constant nightmare, it's only natural for them to seek for reassurance, even if it comes from a very tall 13 y/o who acts like an emperor. I may have done the same at their place.

Yeah I TOTALLY GET THE FEELING OF THE CHILDREN IN THE PARADISE HIDEOUT BEING LIKE "there is now war in Ba Sing Se" like:

But I think... This is what Norman wanted to give them? A safe place to be happy without having to worry about the horrors of the outside world, because he was enough to handle them. I believe all the hideout children knew about the war against the demons Norman was getting ready for, but it was ok, because their Mr. Minerva was so good at what he did that they would have never been in danger. I think part of their easy believing is also due to the fact that most of them are just little children... It's easy for them to believe in that happy tale, they lack critical thinking lol. They were children rescued from farms, right? They most likely never saw a demon themselves, contributing to making them distant, abstract entities that couldn't hurt them. So more than “there's no war in our world” it's more like... “there's a war in our world but our boss is just so good that it's never going to effect us in any way :)". Can this considered brainwash?? I mean, I think Norman was just trying to be hopeful and spread some positivity among the children who would have probably been very scared to be taken away from their homes... Besides, Norman believed in that story as much as the other children did.

#tpn #the promised neverland #tpn norman #tpn jin #tpn hayato #tpn vincent #tpn minerva suicide squad #tpn manga spoilers #tpn analysis #mine #people asks me stuff #The ask talked about Hayato and I merely mentioned him- sorry Anon ;;;;

[seymour-butz-stuff]

Candidate characteristics have an important impact on voter choice, and scandals are found to negatively impact a political campaign. Yet the literature, with its focus on scandals such as financial and (consensual) affairs, has failed to look into how allegations of sexual assault and harassment may impact electability. This study analyzes the effect that allegations of sexual assault or harassment have on the electoral success of American politicians. Using an original survey experiment, we find that, on average, American citizens are less likely to support a candidate accused of sexual assault or sexual harassment. However, not all voters do so to the same magnitude. We find that Democrats are significantly less likely to support a candidate that faces such allegations. Republicans do not strongly penalize candidates facing allegations of sexual assault or harassment, especially if the candidate is identified as a Republican. We analyze open-ended survey responses to offer an explanation for such variation: a propensity to disbelieve women who speak out about sexual assault and harassment explains variations in why some voters may not change their opinion of a candidate based on an allegation.

In the last few years, many women in the United States have been coming out with stories about sexual assault and sexual harassment (SASH) within powerful institutions (Maas et al., 2018). While these allegations have been serious, the fate of the careers of those who are politically affiliated and accused have varied, depending on party politics, political prospects, and ultimately on the electorate.

The 2016 reveal of the Access Hollywood tape wherein Donald Trump acknowledged having sexually predatory behavior inspired a stream of women to come out with stories corroborating his sexually aggressive tendencies (Kurtzleben, 2016). This series of events inflamed national discourse about women’s bodily autonomy and perceptions of allegations of SASH in American culture. In response to the burgeoning accusations, Trump accused all the women of making up the stories to bolster the opposition (Sampathkumar, 2017) and labeled the conversation on the tape as “locker room talk” (Maas et al., 2018). Trump’s political ambitions were not squandered by the negative news, as he was elected president, yet the allegations continue to prompt regular discourse in the media regarding his moral character (Dickinson, 2018).

The 2017 contest between Republican Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones in the conservative state of Alabama brought the subject of SASH into prominent public discussion again (Jacobs and Smith, 2017). The media coverage of the election brought to light accusations from dozens of women claiming Moore had sexually preyed on them as teenagers (Bloch et al., 2017) and framed the election as a retest for the American electorate on the issue of sexual predators in public office. Jones won the election by 1.6 percentage points, which can also be attributed to Moore’s history of racist comments and actions and a particularly high voter turnout among African Americans (Bloch et al., 2017). In light of this narrow win, it is difficult to neatly conclude that the allegations of SASH had a significant impact on voters’ decisions.

Public conversation on the fitness of public officials accused of SASH grew more salient during the 2018 nomination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Dramatic nomination hearings came to signify the divisive and particularly personal nature of conversation in American politics (NYTimes.com, 2018). Despite intense media attention and public outrage over the nomination of a man accused of sexual assault, Kavanaugh was confirmed.

Thus, while many of the federal politicians accused of SASH in the United States in recent years have been forced by party leadership to resign or not to seek re-election, such as Representatives Patrick Meehan (D-PA), John Conyers (D-Mich), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Joe Barton (R-TX), Ruben Kihuen (D-NV), and Al Franken (D-Minn), others have been able to proceed with their political ambitions without repercussion. These include Representatives Alcee Hastings (D-AL) and Bobby Scott (D-VA), President Donald Trump (R), and Justice Brett Kavanaugh (Drew et al., 2018; Garofoli, 2018). Variations in the effect that allegations of SASH have on the career of politicians suggest variations in the degree and magnitude in which voters hold politicians accountable for such actions. This research aims to measure which members of the electorate take allegations of SASH into consideration, if and how allegations impact their choice in an election, and why the demographic groups may have differing reactions.

The charges against the politicians accused in recent high-profile cases vary greatly in severity (Catanese, 2017). For the purposes of this article, we will consider accusations of SASH as classified in recent high-profile reports in the political arena, such as the cases mentioned previously involving Representatives Meehan, Conyers, Farenthold, Barton, Kihuen, Franken, Hastings, Scott, President Trump, and Justice Kavanaugh. The typical allegation features unwanted touching, groping, and harassment within a relationship of unequal power.

The subject of an allegation of SASH is unique in the context of a political election because some people are inherently skeptical of allegations of SASH (Donat and D’Emilio, 1992; Frese et al., 2004; Harrell and Castaneda, 2009) and public opinion is consequential (Buttice and Stone, 2012; Campbell, 1960; Savigny, 2004). Because some people have an inherent skeptical reaction to the validity of allegations of SASH, they will incite a different reaction than other political scandals such as financial scandal or consensual infidelity, because their truth is not necessarily instinctively questioned. In a contest of public opinion, it matters how voters consider SASH allegations: whether or not they take allegations at face value, treat them with skepticism, or consider them to be a tool of the opposing party. In this article, we argue that variations on the degree in which voters penalize candidates for allegations of SASH depend on their inclination to believe or not the victims and this is contingent to their party affiliation. We test this argument using an original randomized experiment applied to a population of 751 American citizens over 18 years old, and shed further light on the causal mechanism by looking into the respondents’ open-ended answers.

Scholars have long agreed that though voters primarily choose candidates based on shared party affiliation, considerations of candidates’ personal characteristics are becoming increasingly relevant, and candidate scandals tend to hurt their electoral chances (Buttice and Stone, 2012; Campbell et al., 1980; Carlson et al., 2008; Funk, 1996). However, the subject of accusations of SASH—as opposed to a scandal involving consensual infidelity—in the political arena is only recently being explored and to the best of our knowledge, there is limited research conducted to survey the population explicitly about their reactions to candidates accused of SASH and their reasons to do so (Stark, 2018). This article contributes to the literature by showing that when partisans are expected to make a choice between supporting their party and penalizing a candidate accused of SASH, they can “argue their way out” by separating the validity of accusations and the desired electoral trajectory of their party’s candidate.

This article proceeds as follows: first, we present a review of the literature to show that the understanding of SASH has grown dramatically in recent decades. Second, we illustrate that the literature finds that candidate characteristics are important to voters, and that descriptive representation finds that personal characteristics have influence elected leadership once in office. Third, we present that there is a gap in the literature on voter judgment of allegations of SASH against candidates, and propose why it is important to distinguish between allegations of SASH from consensual sex scandals. We then hypothesize why voters of certain demographics and party affiliations are more inclined to penalize candidates facing allegations of SASH than others. The section on methodology presents the experiment and it is followed by the “Results” and “Discussion” sections.

The understanding and perception of SASH in American public conversation has evolved throughout the last 70 years, which is a factor that could impact how demographic groups treat allegations of SASH. While SASH is not a new phenomenon, the conversation about sexual violence in the United States was influenced by a definition set by white men and the legal systems they designed. For much of American history, women’s bodies were white men’s legal property, and sexual violence was legally actionable only for men when their property (wives, sisters, and daughters) was damaged. It was not until the 1960s and 1970s that American women began to assert their own perspectives on the subject of sexual violence (Donat and D’Emilio, 1992: 13, 14). Contrary to the main narrative that sexual violence was a random event committed by strangers, leaders in the feminist movement found that it was usually “a violent crime committed against millions of women by men they knew and trusted” (Campbell and Wasco, 2005: 128). The increased awareness of SASH incited increased research on perceptions of SASH in the field of interpersonal behavior, or the study of communications and actions present in human relationships.

Scholars relate the prevalence of sexual violence to a culture of masculinity and rape (rape culture; Anderson and Swainson, 2001; Rozee and Koss, 2001) where sexual violence is condoned by the constructs of the society which are set up so that women have less power than men (Siegel, 2003). The evidence of rape culture in the United States is structurally integrated in all levels of society (Rozee and Koss, 2001: 295, 296) through the institutions which fail to protect women from equal justice and wherein men predominantly hold the most powerful positions. Whether it is perceived or real, the distance between power held by men and by women has directly resulted in cycles of harassment, misconduct, and abuse (Barreto et al., 2009; Drew et al., 2018). That SASH is an expression of dominance and symptom of rape culture rather than an unleashed, unreciprocated sexual impulse is the commonly accepted perspective in the literature today (Anderson and Swainson, 2001; Brenner, 2013; Drew et al., 2018; Rozee and Koss, 2001; Siegel, 2003).

However, the public’s understanding of sexual violence and women’s empowerment led to claims of sexual violence being regarded with increased skepticism in the 1970s (it had always had an air of mistrust because of the private nature of most encounters). The logic was that, because women were choosing to violate the norms of subordination to men, they also sacrificed their right to protection. Therefore, an empowered woman who claimed to be a victim of sexual violence generally was regarded as if she brought it upon herself because she had rejected men’s protection (Donat and D’Emilio, 1992: 14).

Due to the historical mistrust on the subject of sexual violence, there has been much research on attitudes toward allegations of sexual violence and rape myth acceptance. Rape myth acceptance is confirmed in the literature as the level of willingness a person may have to disbelieve a victim’s story, or “the amount of stereotypic ideas people have about rape, such as that women falsely accuse men of rape, rape is not harmful, women want or enjoy rape, or women cause or deserve rape by inappropriate or risky behavior” (Frese et al., 2004).

The prevalence of sexual violence is evident nowadays with victims reporting in increasing numbers new and historical accounts of SASH (Campbell and Wasco, 2005; Harrell and Castaneda, 2009; Krook, 2017; Rozee and Koss, 2001). It is common for women to reveal stories of SASH with the encouragement or corroboration of other victims (Gardner, 2009). For example, in the 1990s, there was a surge in reporting called the “Anita Hill effect” after former staffer for Justice Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill, testified in the Justice’s confirmation hearings about his sexual harassment (Brenner, 2013). The present-day surge in reporting can be tracked to the “#MeToo movement” that motivated women around the world to share their own experiences of harassment and intimidation in the workplace (Krook, 2017).

Today, SASH is widely recognized as acts borne out of a situation of unequal power and the outpouring of allegations through the #MeToo movement indicates that many people have been victims of, or know someone who has been a victim of SASH. Since abuse of power is found to be an important factor for voter consideration (Doherty et al., 2011), it could be that allegations of SASH in the context of a political election will incite a strong judgment from many voters.

Since the 1770s—the inception of the US government—candidates’ personal characteristics as an electoral tool has been a point of discussion and consequently, a source of research (Summers, 2000), as we will now describe in more detail. Since the 1960s and 1970s, there has been increasing public awareness of SASH and consequently, increasing studies in the field of interpersonal behavior that analyzes perceptions of SASH (Donat and D’Emilio, 1992). However, to the best of our knowledge, the insights about perception of SASH derived from the field of interpersonal behavior has not been connected to research on candidates’ personal characteristics as an electoral tool in the field of political science.

Scholarly literature has long agreed that party identification is a key driver in determining voter choice, but advances in technological communications have allowed for greater public investment in personal characteristics of candidates and, therefore, they are also a determinant of a candidate’s success (Campbell, 1960; Denver et al., 2012; Fiorina, 2002; Savigny, 2004; Summers, 2000). Positive personal characteristics raise the candidate’s electability, and negative personal characteristics will have a negative impact (Buttice and Stone, 2012; Campbell et al., 1980), but what constitutes a positive or negative personal characteristic is largely dependent on the voter’s perspective (Collignon and Sajuria, 2018) as they are more inclined to vote for someone who looks like them and with whom they share personality features and demographic characteristics than to vote for someone who does not (Campbell and Cowley, 2014; Campbell et al., 1980; Caprara et al., 2007; Collignon and Sajuria, 2018; Savigny, 2004).

Characteristics of a candidate are not only a key to define vote choice. As literature on descriptive representation suggests, personal characteristics of a candidate have an effect on their performance once in office (Campbell, 1960; Fridkin and Kenney, 2011; Ramey et al., 2016). Elected officials in democracies represent not only the expressed preferences of their constituencies, but also those of their descriptive characteristics that are politically relevant, such as gender (Sanbonmatsu, 2003), race (Hardy-Fanta, 2017), and locality (Collignon and Sajuria, 2018). For example, descriptive representation suggests that female representatives are more capable of representing female voters because of shared experiences and identities (Campbell et al., 2010). The body of research on descriptive representation suggests that while it is undeniable that should be an aim for representative democracies, it is not because of the similarity in demographics but because there is value in ensuring shared experiences of representatives and the electorate. In other words, voters choose candidates based on personal similarities, and the personal lives of politicians matter because their personal experiences factor in their representation.

Taking into consideration the fact that political contests are increasingly evaluated by the candidate’s personal characteristics (Campbell, 1960), that certain personal characteristics appeal to certain people (Collignon and Sajuria, 2018), and that negative personal information bodes negatively for the candidate (Buttice and Stone, 2012; Campbell et al., 1980), it could be argued that a candidate’s alleged propensity to sexually abuse could damage their electoral chances. In addition, when factoring in that personal experiences factor in representation (Campbell et al., 2010), it could also be argued that it also impacts their elected leadership.

Research on how voters respond to negative personal information about candidates agrees that scandals have a markedly negative impact on voters’ judgment of the candidate (Carlson et al., 2008; Funk, 1996). Research on the impact of scandals analyzes primarily financial and consensual sex scandals (Carlson et al., 2008; Funk, 1996), and within those subjects, voters’ predispositions and media sources (Peterson and Vonnahme, 2014), and contextual considerations, such as a good economy (Zaller, 1998). Findings suggest that competence-related scandals, such as tax evasion, have a greater impact on voters’ judgment than emotional scandals such as marital infidelity, with voters relating financial fraud to concern for the potential abuse of public funds (Funk, 1996). But while the negative impact of scandals and consensual sex scandals such as marital infidelity is well documented, the literature largely fails to distinguish between consensual sex scandals and SASH (Craig and Cossette, 2020; Stark, 2018).

Previous research suggest that an abuse of power is a prominent factor that prompts voters to take scandals into consideration (Doherty et al., 2011), suggesting that distinguishing between SASH and consensual sex scandals is important (Donat and D’Emilio, 1992). For example, stories that a candidate has cheated on a spouse may impact voters differently than a candidate who has allegedly sexually harassed his or her intern, because cheating may be considered immoral but not necessarily an act that takes advantage of an unequal relationship. With newfound awareness of SASH, following the #MeToo movement in which many published allegations of SASH about prominent people, the consideration that SASH is an abuse of power in an unequal relationship is a key to the conversation about voter perception of allegations of SASH in an election for public office. The need to break down the analysis of the impact of “sex scandals,” by looking specifically at the impact of allegations of SASH, has been suggested for future research since the subject has become prominent in American political conversation (Craig and Cossette, 2020).

Separately, much research within the field of interpersonal behavior analyzes perceptions and attitudes about allegations of SASH, and how and why certain populations react to claims (Anderson et al., 1997; Anderson and Swainson, 2001; Barnett and Hilz, 2017; Frese et al., 2004). However, there is no literature specifically connecting the research from the field of political science on voter judgment of candidates, and research from the field of interpersonal behavior on perceptions of allegations of SASH. This could be largely due to the fact that accusations of SASH in the political arena, as we have encountered them in the last 5 years have only recently been taken into consideration as a tool of public discourse.

In summary, we understand that voters consider the characteristics of the candidate to cast their ballot and that negative personal information about a candidate impacts voters’ judgment. We also know that wrongdoings such as marital infidelity and financial fraud negatively impact the electability of the candidate. But, to the best of our knowledge, there is limited literature on how allegations of SASH impact voters’ judgment (Craig and Cossette, 2020) and there is even less work on why it does so. In the following section, we theorize that, while voters are likely to be impacted by candidates’ negative personal characteristics, the way in which voters perceive allegations about SASH offers complexity. The variation we will observe is in relation to “rape myth acceptance,” the likelihood that a voter may question the validity of a story of sexual violence outright, and the mitigating effect of partisanship.

Research largely concludes that some demographic groups, including men, conservatives, and “older” people are more likely to have attitudes classified as rape myth acceptance than women, liberals, and younger generations (Anderson et al., 1997; Anderson and Swainson, 2001; Campbell and Wasco, 2005). Studies on sexual violence find that women are victims of SASH more prevalently than men and that they are less prone to rape myth acceptance; that is, less likely to question the validity of stories of sexual violence and, therefore, they are more likely to relate to the issue more personally and have more empathy for victims than men (Anderson et al., 1997; Anderson and Swainson, 2001; Barnett and Hilz, 2017; Campbell and Wasco, 2005; Harrell and Castaneda, 2009; Rozee and Koss, 2001). In their study of perceptions of allegations of rape, Anderson, Cooper and Okamura found “the strongest demographic predictor of attitudes toward rape was the sex of the respondent: men expressed more accepting attitudes toward rape than did women” (Anderson et al., 1997: 311). Victims of SASH, who are most commonly women, are more likely than those who have not experienced SASH, to have unfavorable views of perpetrators.

This shared perspective has power in the American electorate. Loosely defined, single-issue-based groups that share a common belief or perspective, such as women victims of SASH, are strong influences on electoral decision-making (Campbell and Wasco, 2005). Because women are most often victims of SASH, and voters’ attitudes are oftentimes based on perceived personal similarities and connections with a candidate, we hypothesize that women are more likely than men to be impacted by an allegation of a candidate committing SASH.

On the subject of age, we argue that younger people will consider the issue of sexual assault allegations as a factor in their voting decision more than older people because younger adults have lived the entirety of their lives with the social and legal acknowledgment of SASH. Because the first studies on the prevalence of sexual violence were released in 1985 (Harrell and Castaneda, 2009), we are categorizing “younger” Americans as those younger than 35 years, and assume they will have gone through childhood in an environment informed by the legal recognition and definition of SASH. We categorize “older” Americans as aged 35 years and above because we assume that Americans older than age 35 (at the time of this research) experienced childhood without the social understanding of SASH as we know it to be today. As history progressed, women’s involvement in the conversation about SASH helped reshape how it is understood. Yet, cultural norms do not change immediately. Older people may be less receptive to adjusting their understanding of social life (Anderson et al., 1997: 311). Subsequently, we hypothesize that older people will be less inclined than younger people to revoke their support for a candidate based on an allegation of SASH.

Theres more at the link, really makes you wonder about the creatures we inhabit this earth with.

#science

[whereyoursoulresides]

I honestly don’t get the hostility some Sen/shi shippers have toward Kunzoi, especially the claim that the latter isn’t canonical. There are so many SM continuities - the manga, Classic, Crystal, the musicals, PGSM - that fans can choose from that it seems absurd to say that Kunzoi is completely alien to such a sprawling canon. Has Classic become the black sheep of the SM fandom because younger fans were raised on Crystal and official translations of the manga?

Hello Anon!!

I also share your confusion! To be honest, I did my best to avoid much of the Sen/Shi drama back in the day, so I’m not sure if I’m the best to comment about the trends as a whole. It’s most likely a myriad of contributing factors: age of the fans, age of initial exposure, which versions they were introduced first, marketing trends a the time, etc. 

I think what you’re suggesting is entirely possible - that many fans haven’t actually been exposed to Classic in the same way. Based on my experience, a lot of KunZoi fans tend to be of the “old school” variety (from when the subbed Classic episodes were still a bit of an underground phenomenon), or have been inspired by the ViZ ReDub. It’s very possible that for most, the manga was a more accessible, mainstream continuity outside of what was being locally aired. It also doesn’t help that most other versions of SM tend to showcase some form of Sen/Shi more than KunZoi (including  the PC Game that was based in the Classic universe, which included Zoi/Ami, 19:19-19:59). In context of the wider sea of SM incarnations, I can understand why some would see KunZoi as a bit of an outlier. In this perspective, KunZoi was definitely a product of the Classic anime only.

That being said, like you, I don’t understand the insistence of KunZoi’s invalidity due to its canon status. Like...what does it matter if Naoko Takeuchi did or did not mean for them to gay? Why does it matter if they were only a product of the Classic anime? Their existence does not threaten Sen/Shi (in fact, give me Zoi/Ami with a Zoisite that is still fantabulous in his sexuality and affection for Kunzite. Give me Zoi/Ami navigating their queer romantic journey together! That would be both wild and wonderful to read!). The fun in fiction is the expression and exploration of those artistic choices, which is why I will always prefer Classic to Crystal. Its choice to portray KunZoi to such depth was bold and refreshing for its time (and deeply impactful to many), and thus I was dismayed to see that Crystal did not share the same bravery to add their take on it, 25 years later.

Tldr; I absolutely agree with you Anon; such hostility is totally unnecessary and utterly confusing. I do hope some version of a future, mainstream version of SM would feature them again (because they are a delight!! Zoisite especially was so popular!!) with an even richer take that does all their iterations justice. 

#zoisite #kunzite #kunzoi #kunzite x zoisite #classic bssm #classic sailor moon #90s sailor moon #anyo answers

[acti-veg]

Making The Connection

The desire to deny what is happening to animals and to ignore our kinship with them comes from a need to protect ourselves. We want to not only avoid truths we would rather not know, but also to avoid taking responsibility for the harm we have been causing. To face up to our own bias, and in doing so come to terms with the reality of the role we played in the suffering of the animals on our plates, is no easy thing.

This is how we can watch footage of animal slaughter, can be in agreement that this treatment is horrifically cruel, then continue to consume more animals who were likely slaughtered in a very similar manner. It isn’t usually the case that we view such treatment as unfortunate but ultimately necessary either. Most of us agree that such treatment is utterly indefensible, but we rarely connect the dots between our own behaviour and the cruelty we observe. 

For most of us, our reaction to witnessing these acts are not so different from our reactions when watching bombs fall in some far away place. What we see upsets us, we know in our hearts that it is cruel but we don’t feel that we are in any way to blame. We are not the ones committing these acts, and we see no reason to feel personally responsible. The cruelties inflicted against animals are evil, most of us don’t view ourselves as capable of supporting evil, so we cannot think of what we are doing as in any way contributing to that cruelty.

Vegans understand how flawed this thinking is. Through the act of purchasing animal products, we create the demand which results in, and in fact necessitates - the cruelty we see on screen. Trying to inspire the observer to recognise their part in the cruelty they are witnessing is no easy task though; people have a personal incentive to not recognise this truth. 

There are several powerful psychological and social factors at play which allow us to disavow ourselves from the cruelty we see, despite the obvious role we have to play in it. Often simply pointing out the fact that this is exactly how the animals they consume are slaughtered is met by either disbelief or outright derision. The marketing of superkets and suppliers has a role in this too. Consumers see the fields of grass and pigs roaming in the sunshine on their packet and assume that the animal in that clip must have led a completely different life than the one they consume. These clips must be from the worst of the worst facilities, we tell ourselves, places who supply stores we would never buy from.

A large part of this has to do with the fact that, while most people understand the concept of supply and demand, they don’t often apply that knowledge to their own consumption of animals. This is never revealed more clearly than in the response to when someone stops consuming animals, arguments like ‘what difference will it make?’ and ‘the animals will die if you eat them or not’ are all too common. 

The popularity of these arguments demonstrate that people do not intuitively grasp how their own consumption has played a part in that animal dying, or how lowering your own personal demand could possibly have any impact at all. Paradoxically, people see their own purchasing of the animal product, and the act of butchering the animal to provide that product, as two separate and almost completely unrelated events. This is clearly not rational, but is a collective delusion which the overwhelming majority agrees to, making it comfortable to believe in - to proceed with the pretence. When a lie is complete, even the one telling it is convinced.

Part of the problem is that the lie is often easier to believe than the truth. This is especially the case when we are dealing with numbers of deaths which are higher than we would be discussing in literally any other context. Upwards of 70 billion land animals per year is an incredible number, and when including fish the death count reaches the trillions. It is almost impossible to even conceptualise trillions of deaths, much less empathise with those being killed. 

These are numbers that cannot even be counted in anything close to a human lifetime, and however much we would like to believe otherwise, compassion does have its limits. We cannot feel responsible for the deaths of trillions of animals, or even the thousands of animals an individual will consume in their lifetime; it is just too difficult of an idea for us to grasp. It is too much for any of us to let ourselves feel.

To help us deal with this, a diffusion of responsibility takes place between the act of slaughter and the act of consumption. There are so many steps in the chain, so that being the one at the end of that long process who eventually consumes the product feels a world away from being the slaughterhouse worker who wields the blade that kills the animal. 

Even though the consumer is the one who ultimately funds the breeding, exploitation and slaughter of the animal, and is the one who ultimately benefits from it, many of us would be offended by the suggestion that the responsibility is in any way ours. Arguments arise that we cannot blame consumers for the actions of corporations, or that consumers can’t control how an animal is slaughtered, but these become redundant when we realise that for most of us, this act of consumption is a choice made among many other alternatives.

This is what vegans mean when we talk about ‘making the connection.’ It is connecting the food on your plate to the animal who died to produce it, as well as how our own behaviour and the demand we created helped make all of this happen. That is the key difference between vegans and non-vegans, that instead of seeing food when we look at a rack of ribs, we see someone else’s rib cage served up on a plate - an animal who died because we wanted to eat their flesh. Responsibility for the cruelty required to obtain that product rests with us because we could have acted otherwise but chose not to, despite being aware of the consequences. 

You shouldn’t dwell on this or beat yourself up about it, what matters is that you are make yourself learn what you would rather not know, and that you change your behaviour accordingly. That is something to be proud of.

-An extract from my free eBook: The Green Road - A Practical Guide to Veganism

#vegan #personal responsibility #making the connection #original

[yue-muffin]

@mejomonster​ I want to frame your commentary on issues inherent in translated works and hang it on my wall! All of the points you made are exactly my thoughts on the complexities and contributing factors to the imprecise art of translation.

I do believe it is an art or a craft. Although some would disagree, I for one find that it is too imprecise and subject to the translator’s personal style, understanding, and decisions to be anything else. One only need to look as far as any well-known Greek myth, the original of which certainly was not in English, yet has spawned so many translated texts including Spark Notes versions for easier plot understanding, ones that convert the poetry into prose, and so many other variations that I probably aren’t even aware exist. The fact we have so many versions goes to show that there is no One and Only translation and the version you get depends on a lot of factors, one of which is the intent of the translator, and sometimes that intent is not to deliver the most accurate and fully realized version, whatever that means.

When you do want to get as close as possible to the original, it can become incredibly tricky. Like your first major point discussed, how easy it is for a theme or message to get lost in the transition from one language to another! I think people are generally not aware of how difficult it is to convey these messages, especially the ones that are embedded in a phrase, sentence, or symbol that has become a sort of subconscious knowledge passed on through all those who learn that language and grew up in its culture. And that leads them to misjudge a work.

There’s a line that exists between reminding readers that the work they are reading is embedded in a totally different culture context than theirs, and making that translation easy enough to read that the reader doesn’t feel alienated from the piece. Localizations of games have to make some of the toughest choices, in my experience, and some are extremely hit or miss.

The oldest example in the book its Natsume Soseki’s explanation that “I love you” in a confession scene should not be translated literally into Japanese “愛してる” because, he argued, a Japanese person would never confess that way and it would alienate the reader. That’s how we got that famous 月がきれい line. I recently read an article on this in Japanese, and it was basically saying the same thing but interesting nonetheless.

From my own limited, half-baked experiences translating, I have also found that it can be incredibly isolating, and your creative freedom even when working with some constraints is vast. There are things you are going to have to make executive decisions on. That is part of the profession, and why I call it a craft.

Jay Rubin, one of Murakami Haruki’s translators, even said in an interview, “When you read Haruki Murakami, you’re reading me, at least ninety-five per cent of the time.” Murakami’s translated works are interesting to study. I’ve found a blog that discusses them quite a bit. One thing that you’ll quickly notice in certain sections is that the translation is vastly, vastly different from the original. And yet, Murakami’s translators are pretty dedicated. Rubin even apparently phoned Murakami several times on his first translation of his books, to ask and make sure he got details correct or his word choice was good. It also helps that Murakami is a translator himself at times, so even if he doesn’t translate his own books nor work on them, he has knowledge that can help ease the process.

He says that he doesn’t read the English translations on purpose, and that’s a personal decision since he can actually read them critically, but there is a little bit of evidence that he might have read the translation of Hard-boiled Wonderland and the End of the World if one examines the edits he made on a rereleased version of that novel and compares it to the Alfred Birnbaum translation.

Finally, Murakami had this interesting bit to say about translation:

I find myself agreeing. I have always found nothing but benefit in having multiple translations and never understood the conniptions people have when multiple people decide to translate a work (“poaching” is a different matter that does rub me the wrong way, but it is different from starting another translation from scratch). I bring it up a lot, but The Tale of Genji’s various translations throughout the years really highlight this need and the benefit of multiple translations - and also how insufficient a single person’s take, especially on a work with complex themes, can really be.

Genji has many translations. The first complete one was Waley’s. It is criticized today for changing too much of the original, and leaning towards orientalism. These are valid. But it is a popular translation, nonetheless, because it is appealing to many people. Not everyone wants to read the Tyler version which has a million footnotes explaining every cultural nuance that might be missed - a goldmine for those wanting to know more about the history, culture, and language. That Waley translation might not be the best, but it no doubt sparked others to want to make their own that spoke to what they got out of the work and probably inspired people to pick up the language themselves at some point.

The reason why I went into amateur translation myself is because I like fiddling with words and I want to know as close to the original intent of the work as possible. But we have to remember that original intent is also highly subjective. Literary scholars debate the themes and symbolism of countless English works for decades, and those works were originally written in English, and are being consumed by those who grew up in the culture. Port that to another language and suddenly a whole other layer of complexity is added.

I really adore translation work as a field. It’s so interesting and nuanced. Pretty much the only translations I don’t really hold in much regard are machine translations. They’re alright for text that is straightforward, all facts, with more formal grammar and phrasing. But for a language like Japanese, where so much of the beauty and charm of the language is in its indirectness and ability to evoke so much without outright stating it, where sentences by nature imply so many things even down to the subject, machine translation is truly insufficient for fiction that deals with complex themes and imagery.

#the muffin's translating woes #i have many thoughts and this got long #murakami translations are a whole othe rdiscussion #like the fact that wind up bird is missing whole ass sections #some of it is translator choice #some of it is executive decisions from higher up #saying it has to be a certain length #stuff like that #one day i want to read wind up bird in its original glory

[vavuska]

AUGUST 9, 2020

Body positivity and false myths about health.

Introduction

Today, the revered ideal body consists of a tall, slender physique known as the thin-ideal. This idealized image that has been constructed by the media via magazines, movies and advertising campaigns is having adverse effects on the lives of many women, such that more than half of the women are troubled by certain aspects of their appearance and are not accepting of their bodies as a whole. The preoccupation or obsession with their physical appearance has trapped Western women into subscribing to unhealthy narratives such as "I must be thin to be accepted and loved", "A thin body will make me happy", "Dieting will help me lose weight" or "Thinness equals beauty". These nagging voices often overrun women's lives and are linked to various psychological disturbances such as depression, eating disorders, anxieties, countless addictions, BDD, as well as low self-esteem (Rieves & Cash, 1996), relationship difficulties, and sexual dysfunctions (Dworkin & Kerr, 1987).

In addition to noting that people with perceived obesity (again, not medically diagnosed, just perceived) will experience microaggression, bullying, discrimination in housing, employment, education, and healthcare, Phelan notes that their interactions with healthcare professionals is directly affected by size bias.

In these studies by the Mayo Clinic, primary care physicians reported spending less time with obese patients, less communication, and open belief in stereotypes: this patient is lazy, undisciplined, and less likely to adhere to medical advice.

These negative interactions statistically raise a patient’s chances to: delay cancer screenings and routine care, avoid routine check ups, and are more likely to have unreported diagnostic errors.

This isn’t healthy. This isn’t saving or changing any lives. This is having the opposite effect, and it is happening precisely in the places where we are suppose to be receiving “help.”

What is body positivity?

Body Positivity is a social movement rooted in the belief that all human beings should have a positive body image, in doing so it challenges the ways in which society presents and views the physical body. The movement advocates the acceptance of all bodies no matter the form, size, or appearance.

I personally like the 4 Principles of Body Positivity conceptualized by Body Positivity Activist:

ACCEPTANCE OF WHAT IS: Our bodies as is (healthy, sick, skinny, fat, missing a leg, cancer survivors, and black, white, purple, blue and everything else,) deserve respect, visibility, acceptance and have intrinsic value.

REJECTION OF “BEAUTY” STANDARDS: Body-shaming of all types has been shown to yield detrimental long-term psychological effects such as negative body image, depression, anxiety, and a multitude of eating disorders. It serves no benefits, so we reject it entirely.

ACCEPTANCE OF CHANGE: Changes to our bodies—sickness, ailments, aging, pregnancy, surgery, accidents/trauma, putting on weight, losing weight, ALL of it—should be accepted, and should not diminish the value, respect, visibility of our bodies.

TOTAL INCLUSIVITY: Body positivity is inclusive of all bodies, not just those considered to be “fat” or obese,considering most humans are socialized to have negative perceptions of their bodies.

In short, body positivity and its principles are about acceptance, inclusivity, and respect. First aspect to notice: these are all social ideas, not medical ones. Why naysayers of body positivity consistently bring up the promotion of obesity when fat bodies are displayed is a mystery to me.

The second aspect of its definition one must notice: body positivity does not “promote” any body type. It is simply stating that all body types have intrinsic value. We certainly agree with this as a society. If you intentionally hurt someone’s body--again, regardless of the look, age, or state of that body--we consider that a crime. Body positivity simply concurs with this logic.

Lastly, body positivity by definition does not purport that evolution, change, and/or a healthy lifestyle is unacceptable. You can be body positive and be healthy. In fact, body positivity promotes taking care of yourself.

1 - “Your weight is entirely within your control, you are just being lazy”

As a random guy wrote on Facebook: “Body positivity is appreciating things that are beyond your control, like the colour of your eyes, skin colour, hair texture, height, etc. Weight is entirely within your control...if you eat a lot, you will get fat. Body positivity enables gluttony which is a slap to the face for underprivileged people everywhere in the world.”

That's not entirely true: gaing wight could be caused by hormones (pregnancy, menopause, ecc), genetics (for e.g. Peter Will syndrome) other medical condition linked to endocrines such as Cushing's syndrome or a malfunction of thyroid (hypothyroidism).

The involvement of genetic factors in the development of obesity is estimated to be 40–70%. Some of these obesogenic or leptogenic genes may influence obese individuals response to weight loss or weight management.

To date, more than 400 different genes have been implicated in the causes of overweight or obesity, although only a handful appear to be major players. Genes contribute to the causes of obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.

The strength of the genetic influence on weight disorders varies quite a bit from person to person. Research suggests that for some people, genes account for just 25% of the predisposition to be overweight, while for others the genetic influence is as high as 70% to 80%.

Obesity or overweight is not concerned about gluttony. It could depend on a lot of factors: physical and psychological. It is proved that people with depression or anxiety may experience weight gain or weight loss due to their condition or the medications that treat them. Depression and anxiety can both be associated with overeating, poor food choices, and a more sedentary lifestyle. Over time, weight gain may eventually lead to obesity.

Body positivity is about being conformable in our skins. Appreciating what we are and what we have. Body positivity does not promote any form of body, differently of what our media do.

2 — “You cold loose some weight, if you put in some dedication”

This one deleted the previous comment in which he used abused, starving people in Auschwitz to promote a diet, but I have his second one: “I meant that the problem with losing weight is just calories you eat vs calories you burn, of course the amount of calories you burn depend on hormones and a lot of other things. However, everyone can burn more calories by exercising. The Auschwitz prisoners were just an example that it is possible to lose weight, no matter the circumstances, if you REALLY put your mind to it. How you go about increasing the gap between the calories you consume and the ones you burn is up to you. Also, long term, even a 100kcal deficit per day can help you lose weight. You dont have to starve yourself to lose weight.”

Loosing weight is not always a good thing and it is not as easy like those people think.

Muscle does weigh more than fat because it is a denser product. On average, the density of fat is 0.9g/ml. The density of muscle is 1.1 g/ml. Using the averages, 1 liter of muscle weights 1.06 kg or 2.3 lbs., while 1 liter of fat weights .9 kg, or 1.98 lbs. An easier way to think of it might be: if you have an equal volumn of fat and muscle, fat is going to weigh about 80% of what the muscle weighs. This can vary due to numerous factors including race, being extremely lean or being extremely obese according to “Exercise Physiology” by William D. McArdle, et al.

The ‘take away’ points are:

Yes, muscle weighs more than fat. But….. do not assume because you started working out and you are not losing weight it is because you are increasing muscle.

The higher percent muscle you have on your body the smaller your clothing size because muscle takes up less space than fat.

On the other hand, if you are loosing weight, don't presume you are necessarly loosing fat, you could also lost muscles and this is not a good thing.

For that guy, don't eat is the solution to every weight problem. This leads to a thing called anorexia (which is one of the most painful consequences of the idealization of a “perfect body shape” myth portrayed by media). And, again, this guy really thinks that abused starving people are a good example to promote a diet. He seems to doesn't know how work human body and that if you don't eat as much to sustain your body, you will begin to feel always tired, weak and such because your body doesn't have enaugh energy to consume. We will see this in the next point.

3 — “You better have a diet”

I use the word "diet" in this context to refer to any set of restrictive food rules (barring true medical and ethical concerns). If you are feeling guilt and shame about your food choices, it is likely that you are approaching the experience of eating from a "diet mentality."

The word "diet" often has a negative connotation, so many people prefer to say they are making a “lifestyle change.” But if your lifestyle change entails rigid food rules that invoke guilt when broken, you are probably on a diet, even if in disguise. And the truth is, the diet industry wants us to "fail" so that we will continue to purchase their products. When you jump on the latest fad bandwagon, you support a multi-billion dollar industry that profits by convincing us we are inherently flawed.

Diets do not help you maintain weight loss long-term. The idea that people fail at diets because of a lack of willpower is a myth perpetuated by the diet industry. Powerful biological factors essentially ensure that your attempt at dieting will fail. Researcher Traci Mann, who has studied dieting for more than 20 years, found that there are metabolic, hormonal, and neurological changes that contribute to "diet failure."

According to Mann, "When you are dieting, you actually become more likely to notice food. . . But you don't just notice it—it actually begins to look more appetizing and tempting." Mann also stated that as you begin to lose weight, "the hormones that make you feel hungry increase" and "the hormones that help you feel full, or the level of those rather, decreases."

For the average adult in a resting state, the brain consumes about 20 percent of the body’s energy. The brain’s primary function — processing and transmitting information through electrical signals — is very, very expensive in terms of energy use.

The exact percentages are difficult to ascertain, but we have pretty good estimates of where that energy is going, though it varies by the area of the brain. In the cerebral cortex of mice, about a quarter of the brain’s energy goes to maintaining the neurons and glial cells themselves — the processes that all cells go through to remain alive. The remaining 75 percent is used for signaling — sending and processing electrical signals across the brain’s circuits. These numbers seem to be very similar in humans.

The brain is an energy-hungry organ. Despite comprising only 2 percent of the body’s weight, the brain gobbles up more than 20 percent of daily energy intake. Because the brain demands such high amounts of energy, the foods we consume greatly affect brain function, including everything from learning and memory to emotions.

Just like other cells in the body, brain cells use a form of sugar called glucose to fuel cellular activities. This energy comes from the foods we consume daily and is regularly delivered to brain cells (called neurons) through the blood.

As Mann explains, when you diet, "Your metabolism slows down. Your body uses calories in the most efficient way possible... When your body finds a way to run itself on fewer calories there tends to be more left over, and those get stored as fat."

Thus, it is no surprise that studies show that 95 percent of people will "fail" at diets. Most people can lose weight in the short-term; however, over time the majority will regain the weight they lost—and potentially gain even more. Working to suppress your weight below your natural body weight is ultimately a fruitless effort—in fact, it's an utter waste of time.

4 — “Being overweight or obese means being unhealthy”

Studies have found that anywhere from one-third to three-quarters of people classified as obese are metabolically healthy. They show no signs of elevated blood pressure, insulin resistance or high cholesterol. Meanwhile, about a quarter of non-overweight people are what epidemiologists call “the lean unhealthy.” A 2016 study that followed participants for an average of 19 years found that unfit skinny people were twice as likely to get diabetes as fit fat people. Habits, no matter your size, are what really matter. Dozens of indicators, from vegetable consumption to regular exercise to grip strength, provide a better snapshot of someone’s health than looking at them from across a room.

According to an article in The Nutrition Journal by Dr. Linda Bacon and Lucy Aphramor, "Most epidemiological studies find that people who are overweight or moderately obese live at least as long as normal weight people, and often longer."

So, you can be under or normal weight, but that's doesn't make necessarly much more healthy than a overweight people. You can't say that a person is not "healthy" by judging on their physical appearance.

Some feminist points of view

Now, aks yourselves why so many cisgender etherosexual men are so upset from seeing plus size models in media? Do they really care about stranger's women heath?

NOPE!

Oh. Maybe is because they are the ones who lose something in seeing women considered not attractive for their physical appearance being accepted and admired?

YES.

Female beauty standard in media are designed for heterosexual male consumption.

As women gain economic and political power, their beauty should matter less.

Feminist scholars have contended that cultural norms and expectations encourage girls and women to be attentive to and psychologically invested in their physical appearance, which can undermine their well-being and contribute to eating dysregulation, depression, and other psychological difficulties (Cash, Ancis, & Strachan, 1997). Mary Wollstonecraft (1792), who is considered to be the founder of feminism, asserted that women's preoccupation with appearance was due to impoverished education, domestic subjugation, and vain pursuits toward which women were directed by their culture. The feminist perspective reaffirms the declaration that a woman's self-worth, ability, and livelihood are not centred on her physical appearance.

Wayne Dyer (1976/1995) elaborated on this: “many women have accepted the cultural dispatches and behave in ways that they are supposed to when it comes to their bodies. Shave your legs and underarms, deodorize yourself everywhere, perfume your body with foreign odours, sterilize your mouth, make up your eyes, lips, cheeks, pad your bra, spray your genitals with the appropriate bouquet, and falsify your fingernails. The implication is that there is something unpleasant about the natural you, the essentially human you, and only by becoming artificial can you become attractive.”

Peterson et al. (2008) posit that feelings of powerlessness may lead a woman to rely on external evaluations of her body as well as to control her eating behaviours. In contrast, feelings of empowerment may decrease the likelihood that a woman will internalize society's messages regarding attractiveness and hence develop schemas that highlight the importance of appearance. Overall, what is suggested is that feeling empowered in one's life may translate to reduced self-objectification and, in turn, to a decrease in negative evaluations of body image.

As this gross guy said:

“Those women aren't thin they look healthy, your problem with them is that their not grossly obese, I've got news for you, most men don't find grossly obese women attractive. Women decide what they want to look like and that happens to be appealing to men, the media has nothing to do with it, women have been beautifying themselves in order to attract men for millennia.”

Young-Eisendrath (1999) elaborates on the psychological damage done by this: “the belief that we must be thin in order to be successful results in feelings of insecurity about ourselves and our abilities. Obsessive control of the female body leads not to power but to shame, self-consciousness, confusion, illness, even death by eating disorders. Longing to be reassured of our worth and validity, we submit to humiliating advice from experts who tell us what and when to eat, and how to exercise, as if we were children.”

In summary, the obsession with physical appearance often distorts reality, making individuals vulnerable to a host of psychological difficulties, including depression and anxiety, and even abuse (Hooks, 1995). Seeking the ideal body type, which is thinner genetically than 95% of women, is also harmful, as the anxiety it creates about weight is focused upon unnatural thinness rather than health (Williams, 1998).

Body positivity protects women from negative feelings about their bodies: women are encouraged to refute the message of the importance of thinness and develop more empowering self-definitions based on other attributes such as their intelligence or creativity. Feminist ideology thus emphasizes that a woman's self-worth should not be determined by her physical appearance.

This male obsession about our weight, saying that we are not "healthy", is just another way to cotrol our bodies, girls!

Lisa Turner, a food writer and nutrition consultant, summed it up best: “Losing weight is not your life's work, and counting calories is not the call of your soul. You surely are destined for something much greater, much bigger, than shedding 20 pounds or tallying calories. What would happen if, instead of worrying about what you had for breakfast, you focused instead on becoming exquisitely comfortable with who you are as a person?”

Some final conclusions

So telling to every people "you are fat, lazy, ugly and need to exercise for your own health" is not only harmful but not even ever correct for all the reason above.

The person you are insulting online could be “overweight” because has a condition, is highly depressed for past suffering experience (I know girls with past of sexual abuse who used to eat to find comfort for a pain that her cannot express in other ways). Or maybe not. To make it easier for you to understand, you must stop to judge people we don't know on their physical appearance, body shape or weight and we must try to be polite, so you will not get yourselves into embarrassing situations saying stupid things like "oh, sorry... I didn't know you had this thing...", after giving unrequested health suggestion to strangers or insulting them?

Have you ever consider how harm can do on others your “caring about strangers” health? What YOU are doing is causing eating disorders and low self-esteem on others. Body positivity helps to accept ourselves and not to spend our time into stupid considerations about our bodies.

THAT'S WHY WE NEED BODY POSITIVITY!

A little list to summarize:

Don't give unrequested health suggestion: they don't ask and you are not their doctor;

Every person need to be accepted and respected as they are;

Obesity bias adversely affects a person’s likelihood to get help;

Your body works better when you thinking happy thoughts about yourself;

Negative body image DOES promote obesity. And anorexia. And a lot of other bad stuff.

#vavuskapakage #body postivity #my body my rules #my body my rights #self acceptance #self acceptation #self worth #intersectional feminism #feminismart #feminism is for everyone #everydayfeminism #inclusive feminism #everyday feminism #benevolent sexism #sexism

[it-d035n-t-m4tt3r]

12/5/2020

It’s been a long while since I had bothered to post here.  But I have got something new for you all today that I think is imperative in considering philosophically.  I want to move away for a while from the existentialist school of thinking and really take some time to move in a different direction.  With that being said, lets take a look at G.V. Plekhanov’s writings on “On the Role of the Individual in History”. This work is a considerable theoretical force when trying to understand historical materialism and the dialectic nature of materialist philosophical perspectives.  I want to cover, at least for now, the first three sections of his piece as this is where I personally think he really lays the most important philosophical groundwork used later to build it up.

But first, some context.

During the period prior to the first revolution of 1905, particularly through the 1870’s and 80’s in Russia much if not all of the available Marxist and socialist literature had been censored in the universities and outright banned by the Tsar outside of the intelligentsia. The forces of Marxism within Russia were small, but not nonexistent. The Emancipation of Labor Group was inarguably the only force for Russian Marxism which had come to the correct theoretical conclusions; cadre development, dialectical thinking, rejection of a stagiest development out of tsarism and into socialism, a rejection both the terroristic approach to agitation as well as liberal capitulations on the side of a newly burgeoning socially and politically active student population, and an emphatic work both within and without the unions. Plekhanov was considered by those both within this small group and by his opponents to be the most theoretically developed force, most vigorously against Narodnism and the Narodnoi Voli who, to be reductive, were a group of workerist terrorists and the strongest, that is to say the largest political group fighting against Tsarism at the time.  Plekhanov’s writings, laid the foundation for Russian Marxism and the ground work for the defense of historical and dialectical materialism, and a reconciliation of these two perspectives, which are essential to Marxist though, and the role that an individual plays within that theoretical framework. But it wasn’t until his publication of On the Development of the Monist View of History and On the Role of the Individual in History in 1895 and ’98 respectively were these theoretical developments laid bare.  Therefore, a thorough and complete understanding of these works, in this case the latter, will help to better develop an understanding of dialectics, and as Marxism.

PART I

The most popular perspective of historical consideration at this time was the “Factors Theory of History”. This is one that all contributions to the development of human progress comprises of independent factors which are both of equal historical footing in terms of their prior development, an are of equivocal magnitudes with respect to their ability to affect changes in the real world and to drive history forward.  This matter of thinking, and Plekhanov describes, was a generally accepted historical interpretive consensus.  This eclecticism of Russian historical thinking amounts to no more than what could otherwise be described as an amalgamation of different perspectives, and an interchange of different historical viewpoints.  Exchanging factors for one another, and emphasis of one factor over another, a historical jigsaw puzzle with no true corners or edges which can be swapped or traded: a cherry-picking approach to history.

It was amongst these eclectic historical philosophers where the greatest antagonism to historical materialism can be seen.  They saw it as a reductionist conception of historical thinking which subjugated the individual to an “economic factor” rather than as a concurrent and independent one.  But historical materialism is not and should not be relegated to any sort of equivocation with quietism, an abandonment of the will or any control of the individual over their conditions.

Plekhanov offers us the example of the two English scientists, Priestley and price to explicate why not only is this an incorrect equivocation of Historical materialism and quietism, but that even when people do believe in a sort of fatalistic quietism, that this is in no way an inhibition on their will.  He says “Price argued that materialism was incompatible with the concept free will, and that it precluded all independent activity on the part of the individual”, and in reply Priestley, a member of the Christian Necessarians, used the example of every day experience to say that “where would one find more mental vigor, more activity, more force and persistence in the pursuit of extremely important aims, than among those who subscribe to the doctrine of necessity?”

What is being noted here is that even though, there is a degree of things which are incompatible with free will, it is by no means a wholesale rejection of it within itself!  Necessity is of course, the product of materialistic needs which must be met. And under no circumstance can needs be ignored by any amount of will, lest it then cease to exist.  Hunger, thirst, warmth, cooling.  We make the choice to do these things not because we will ourselves into hunger or thirst, but because as a living thing on this planet, just as any other, we are compelled to do them, otherwise, we have no means of willing anything at all!  You cannot use your will to un-dead yourself. Practical, material activity, and the human will be neither irreconcilable nor independent from one another but are complimentary in all human activity.  This is of course, a foundational Marxist perspective. He does not assert, and has never asserted, that where the will does not play an active role, it therefore is nonexistent in its totality.

Marxists are certainly not quietists in the sense that they do not carte blanche accept that which is, nor are they fatalists in in accepting an inevitable fate of the universe. Opponents of Marxism, specifically in Russia in the late 19th century assert that Materialism is tantamount to a fatalist approach to historical analysis and, in conjunction a rejection of free will.  But underscoring this perspective, as Plekhanov points out, lies a brazen contradiction.

“…history shows that even fatalism was not always a hindrance to energetic, practical action; on the contrary, in certain epochs it was a psychologically necessary basis for such action. In proof of this, we will point to the Puritans, who in energy excelled all the other parties in England in the seventeenth century; and to the followers of Mohammed, who in a short space of time subjugated an enormous part of the globe, stretching from India to Spain.”

Even for those who believe in the predestined world of any number of gods, belonging to any number of historical pantheons have been capable of great exertions of individual will conquering the world three times over.

In light of this contradiction to the inaction of the individual on behalf of fatalism, there is no denying that there are portions, significant ones at that, of human existence wherein there can certainly be no discussion of whether or not will exists. Because it is simply absent.  In Plekhanov’s words, the inevitable activities, in the link of inevitable events, is of course demonstrated by the impossibility of inaction which is to say that that this lack of free will in the face of such events posits that any individual is incapable of acting differently from the way they are acting. One cannot “will” the facticities of one’s existence away, you cannot “will” yourself to have been born in a different place, and in a different time, you cannot “will” yourself hungerless.  He ends this first section by stating that,

“Hamlet never knew this mood; that is why he was only capable of moaning and reflecting. And that is why Hamlet would never have accepted a philosophy, according to which freedom is merely necessity transformed into mind.”

Those who are incapable of reconciling that, necessity can be transformed into freedom are left to do nothing but reflect and contemplate on meaningless factors of the jigsaw puzzle they have made of history.  And of course, thus arises things like alternate history where these factors can be tweaked or moved to anticipate different historical outcomes and the like.

PART II

How is it then that necessity can be then transformed into freedom, a concept which seems to be rather difficult at first?  

Plekhanov begins the second section by describing this example of the lunar eclipse.  

It is obvious that one cannot the moon into an eclipse so let’s set that aside.

If we are to look at the argument that materialism were a form of quietism,

We would necessarily have to accept the premise that the eclipse would only take place through human activity or intervention, and conversely would not happen due to inaction.

If then as an individual were to refrain from taking part in such an activity knowing well the eclipse would take place without us,

than abstaining from a ceremony to bring it about would be to simply abstain from useless action.  

But of course, arguments of this sort would lead us into a sort of circular argumentation in which we were supposed to accept that nature is as it were, which leaves us without cause to engage with it in the first place even though it would be necessary for us to do so.  In order for us to really make sense of this example,

” It would have to be imagined that the moon is gifted with a mind, and that her position in celestial space, which causes her eclipse, appears to her to be the fruit of the self-determination of her own will; that it not only gives her enormous pleasure, but is absolutely necessary for her peace of mind; and that this is why she always passionately strives to occupy this position.”

For some, the discovery of such a contradiction between the will and the movement of the moon, in this example would lead them to believe that there must be some liberatory force that may free it from this Sisyphean routine, in order that the moon might continually feel happy and pleasureful. That the moon can “will” itself to only feel happy, and to free itself from routine. But this cannot be done, for a number of obvious reasons. So then where might we be left searching got the underlying cause of such dissatisfaction between the inability to reconcile the moon’s “ideals” and its real movements?  Is it not in the movements alone which has brought on the facticities which have thereby created those ideals in the first place?  The moon was simply born feeling a vigorous reprieve to have eclipsed as if it were destiny.  No.  It is the movements of celestial space which have given cause to those ideals and principles.

We could then argue that when one feels most distant from the material forces which they are a part of, they feel loss, alienated, distanced, and melancholic. Just as much, when one feels closest to those same forces, when they can grasp and reconcile them, they feel most free right?  It could also very well be the opposite in fact, but in any case, the focal point of Plekhanov’s observation is that it is the material circumstances themselves which give cause to the way we reconcile them in the first place!  The material circumstances of capitalism are the same conditions under which both proletarian and bourgeois alike occupy, but only one is aggrieved by them.  It is not their immutable “ideals” which were necessary for such aggrievement, but rather the point of departure lies in the material circumstances of the individual that shapes their interpretation of them.  Those material circumstances predict the subjectiveness of our ideals and how we reconcile them with the necessities of our existence.  Just as the moon would need to do.  This is where necessity, becomes freedom,

“When the consciousness of my lack of free will presents itself to me only in the form of the complete subjective and objective impossibility of acting differently from the way I am acting, and when, at the same time, my actions are to me the most desirable of all other possible actions, then, in my mind, necessity becomes identified with freedom and freedom with necessity; and then, I am unfree only in the sense that I cannot disturb this identity between freedom and necessity, I cannot oppose one to the other, I cannot feel the restraint of necessity. But such a lack of freedom is at the same time its fullest manifestation.”

Here we can see the historical and material dialectic at work. The unity of opposites, where the interrelatedness of two congruent factors which then form into a synthesis. In the Marxist sense, it is the proletariat acting out of both individual necessity, (eating, sleeping, etc.) and historical necessity (the progression out of capitalism which I will get to in a moment) which are predicated on the material conditions in which they arise.

It is in this that we understand that freedom is not simply the opposite of restraint; you need not be free from something to be free.  His conception of freedom can only be applied to the freedom from external restraint and realistically cannot extend past those definitional confines (ironically enough). There is within this conception, a dualistic construction of freedom between the subject and the object alone.

“The subject is free to/from object”

A pickpocket is free to steal, or the capitalist, is free to own property, which amounts only to a contest of wills which appear only in a vacuum.

This facile thinking leaves no room for either dialectical analysis or a materialist/historical analysis and is only ever an “at present” empirical equation between the object and subject within and of themselves.  With Plekhanov’s rejection of this rudimentary dichotomy, we begin to see where the “Monist” view of history begins to take form.  More precisely, we begin to see the Marxist perspective of history start to take form for him.  For Plekhanov, the subject and object are neither apart from themselves, nor from historical and material preconditions, but also that the current material and historical epoch, mold into one with the object and the subject. Thus, forming a dialectical relationship with all of these so called “factors”, where no single factor is independent, or separable from the others.

“…capitalism, in the course of its development, will lead to its own negation and to the realization of their, the Russian “‘disciples’” – and not only the Russian – ideals. This is historical necessity. The “disciple” serves as an instrument of this necessity and cannot help doing so, owing to his social status and to his mentality and temperament, which were created by his status. This, too, is an aspect of necessity. Since his social status has imbued him with this character and no other, he not only serves as an instrument of necessity and cannot help doing so, but he passionately desires, and cannot help desiring, to do so. This is an aspect of freedom, and, moreover, of freedom that has grown out of necessity, i.e. to put it more correctly, it is freedom that is identical with necessity – it is necessity transformed into freedom.”

By blending the matter of historical necessity, the liberation from restraint, the molding of subject and object, and the inevitability of historical progression, there arises the case of such a necessity to desire no other path than that which is materially inevitable and  necessity even with the assumption that we may choose to not participate or to reject the premise as a whole.  The desire to aid in the demise of capitalism is at once a historical necessity, wherein, we recognize that this would happen with or without us.  But to deny this would be to deny our ideals which we have developed out of the material conditions which form that necessity in the first place, capitalism itself.

“Until the individual has won this freedom by heroic effort in philosophical thinking, he does not fully belong to himself, and his mental tortures are the shameful tribute he pays to external necessity that stands opposed to him. But as soon as this individual throws off the yoke of this painful and shameful restriction he is born for a new, full and hitherto never experienced life; and his free actions become the conscious and free expression of necessity”

 PART III

As we can see, being conscious of a historical phenomenon is not simply enough to the desire to see it come to fruition, it is only through the lens of necessity, and the freedom of acting on necessity do we engage with its coming into being.  Those who do not sympathize with this manner of historical thinking are either willfully ignorant reactionaries or are simply complacent in their not knowing.

 Plekhanov offers us in the third section a mathematical expression wherein we might better understand what this means.

A=Phenomenon

S=Circumstances for Phenomenon to occur

T=Time for Circumstances to occur (OR) ∑T=S

I= Those who sympathize with (A)

a=Activities Sympathetic to (A) (OR) Activities which aid in the development of (S)

THEN

A=I*(Sa)+S 

=> Dialectical and Historical Materialism/Monism, where all factors are integral to the equation resulting in a given phenomenon

It is not the case that A=S 

=> Dualism where it is only the circumstances or a single factor that contributes to a tautological statement

Let us then consider that

b= another who sympathizes with (A) but is more engaged in aiding the development of (S)

THEN

A=I*(Sb)+S

The equation fundamentally remains the same and the level of activity is inconsequential the fruition of (S) but is only imperative to the level by which (S) has developed fully. (the difference between a failed and a successful revolution)  This is not to say that it has not developed and therefore will never exist but not developed to its fullest extent within that given period of time where both the sum of time (S) and the contribution to the development of circumstances (Sx) are still developing congruent to the already existing trend or in the mathematical sense, fulfilling the equation.  Al that need change is the sum of time needed to meet the development at its given magnitude.  If we are to anticipate the levels of activity, which we have already acknowledged are preconditioned by the general trend of historical development of the material conditions in a given period, we must assume that the consciousness that given phenomenon are matters for affecting the level of activity in developing that historical necessity (A). By understanding the magnitude of both (a) and (b) we can better approximate the time by which phenomenon (A) will occur and the magnitude of the event! This of course, is class consciousness.

              But what then do we suppose becomes of the opponents of historical necessity? Does their counteraction negate those who stand opposed to the would-be elimination of the inevitability?  No, and under some circumstances, their actions only effect the magnitude at a given time to be most charitable.  But less so, their actions are that which is implied in the very circumstances for the inevitability of the event in the first place.  They are the very circumstances which suppose the historical necessity of that phenomenon which they are so determined to prevent!  Even if they stand more strong and numerous against the meek and the few, the smaller forces vigor of the freedom of necessity becomes transformed into the vigor of despair, and can become just as much an active force for historical development as those who are persuaded by its availability. “Why not, if we have no other recourse”

All of this of course places a higher degree of emphasis on the individual’s consciousness to/of a given phenomenon, and to those ends, many subjectivists (more contemporarily Post Modernists) may conclude a similar result.  The emphasis of the individual.  Yet they are unable still, to reconcile the role of the individual within an inevitable historical context, and to such ends, are unable to distance the inevitability of a historical phenomena from the role from the role of a given individual who becomes places at its epicenter for their high degree of participation in seeing that phenomenon come to fruition, conscious of its inevitability or not.  For them, the individual then becomes its own “critical factor” of historical development, independent and apart from the object of freedom via necessity, apart from will, as well as the otherwise predominant general trend of historical development.  This is a simple reiteration of course, of the facile idiocy, found within dualism which falls apart when placed under a greater degree of historical and philosophical and material scrutiny.  On the one hand there is a rejection of the simplicity of dualistic thinking, and the over emphasis on the individual actors who are above and apart from larger trends of historical development.  Marxists reject the false equivocation with quietism and fatalism with historical materialism, and the ridiculousness of puzzle piece, cherry picked factors existing in a vacuum.  On the other hand, there is a rejection of over deterministic bastardized materialism which diminishes any meaningful role on the part of the individual and subjugates them to un quantité néglegeable in bringing about the conditions to fulfill an inevitable historical necessity.

“It is as unsound to sacrifice the thesis to the antithesis as to forget the antithesis for the sake of the thesis. The correct point of view will be found only when we succeed in uniting the points of truth contained in them into a synthesis”

There is the dialectic interpretation of these two counter positions to understand our own roles, and our own freedom

This is the famous painting called “Liberty Leading the People”, a painting done by Eugène Delacroix commemorating the July Revolution of 1830.  What we see in this painting is not just a depiction of a bourgeois revolution and the foreword march of “inevitable events” as Plekhanov might say, but a manifestation of an idealist conception of history, a bourgeois conception of history.  That is to say, one in which the development of the ideals themselves, not the general material trend in history and the dialectic relationship between all “factors”, moves history forward.

~Put that in your pipe and Smoke it~

#marxism #plekhanov #revolution #history #philosophy #dialectics #materialism

[remcaballes]

Here are somethings to think about!

Is there a significant decrease in the well-being of individuals on the experience of living in highly urbanized areas? Why?

Is living in highly urbanized area increases chances of having poor lifestyle, affects family more negatively than positively? (stress, alcohol, smoking, drug addiction, etc.)

The following are the data sets I considered to further validate the possible results of my hypothesis:

1.      For the data on the experiences in living situations and environments in urban areas – I chose the data from  National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health

2.      For the comparison of data on the employment rate, income, quality of life in the urban places of different countries – I chose Gapminder data

3.      For the association of epidemiological effects of drug use and other health conditions by living in urban areas - I chose the data from  The U.S. National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC)

Some findings in related literatures will also gave evidences and variables that can be contributory to the quality or kind of life some people have in urban areas.

Let’s see some researches that gives light to the reality of our questions above.

Urbanization's physical and social impacts on health and disease are known. Although causal relationships are not fully established, poor health is associated with poverty, malnutrition, poor housing, inadequate sanitation, pollution, and economic and psychological stresses, as well as with inadequate health services. Urbanization in industrialized and developing countries has brough about increased human exposure to health hazards: biological, chemical, physical, social, and psychological… but urban congestion and pollution threaten the health of people in all countries.

Statistics provided by the United Nations Center of Human Settlements show that the contribution to housing stock by the informal sector (not registered by the authorities, do not keep accounts, and employ mostly casual labour for sites and construction) is significant: for example in the Philippines 86% of the housing stock increase was produced by the informal sector, in Brazil 82%, in Venezuela 77%, in Colombia 64%, and in Chile 44% (UNCHS, 1988b).

 (Urbanization, Health and well-being: A Global Perspective by G. Goldstein, 1990)

 The impact of socio-economic effects on health can be complex in urban populations. High income should theoretically improve many health outcomes, but it may also support an unhealthy lifestyle, as poor early conditions increase the risk of obesity in a subsequently more socio-economically developed environment.

Increasing socio-economic status may result in an elevated risk of chronic pathologies.

Urban consumerism can be associated with a markedly elevated generation of anthropogenic pollutants, either through lifestyle choices (e.g., car usage) or industry (e.g., factories, e-waste dismantling).

Many standard air pollutants increase with degree of urbanization. These include particulate matter (PM), which has been among the highest in the world in China since economic expansion began in the 1980s, and products of combustion. Urbanization may affect water quality through an excess of contamination including endocrine disrupting chemicals, antibiotics, steroid hormones, and excess nutrients. Elevated exposures to chemicals can also arise in indoor environments (e.g., from new building materials or furnishings).

 (Understanding and Harnessing the Health Effects of Rapid Urbanization in China by Yong-Guan Zhu, John P.A. Ioannidis, Hong Li, Kevin C. Jones, and Francis L. Martin, 2011)

 Urban socialization leads to two characteristics, Individualistic and materialistic in their outlook. Furthermore, cities can also offer so many other negative ideologies including hedonistic cultures such as entertainment, clubbing, free sex, drugs phonographic and so on, ad search for instant gratification.

Competing for space leads to the emergence of squatter and slum areas. Concisely, urbanization trend today may be seen as nothing less than the urbanization of poverty and deprivation. This scenario is one of growing unemployment, weak social services, lack of adequate shelter and basic infrastructure as well as increasing disparities resulting in a high degree of social exclusion. These are, of course, the well-known causes of social dysfunction, crime, and violence.

Malaysian gov't is having difficulties trying to solve several social problems such as 'mat rempit', free sex and abortion that have not been heard before. Mat Rempit (illegal motorbike racing). They do not only engage in racing among themselves but also challenge other road users to race with them or they will fight with those who try to stop them. These problems are associated with dense population as well as low moral values.

Prejudice and discrimination would certainly develop in this kind of environment and social conflict will erupt at any time.

The issue of crim and violence also draws the same concern. We are aware that security and safety is paramount for human wellbeing. In the same vein, crime and violence disproportionately affect the psychology of urban residents.

Neighborhoods isolate their families because of danger. Together the populations and spaces of cities present both opportunities and challenges to well-being and healthy development. This leads to the theoretical and practical question for urban psychology i.e. the consequences of urban life for mental health, well-being, and development.

Much psychological research has documented the relationship between stress and health outcomes. Because of the nature of the urban environment (i.e., high density, diversity, environmental pollutant), many types of stress-related cases occur more frequently among its residents in comparison to rural or suburban residents.

 In Malaysia, residence, or home for most of urban dwellers would means flat, condominium, apartment or terrace house with building scenario and manmade landscape which is often poorly laid out. This kind of environment would certainly affect the psychological wellbeing of the urban folks. 

(Urbanism, Space and Human Psychology: Value Change and Urbanization in Malaysia by Zaid B. Ahmad, Haslinda Abdullah and Nobaya Ahmad, 2009)

 Urbanization brings with it a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. This demographic transition is accompanied by economic growth and industrialization, and by profound changes in social organization and in the pattern of family life. Urbanization affects mental health through the influence of increased stressors and factors such as overcrowded and polluted environment, high levels of violence, and reduced social support.

Impact of urbanization is associated with an increase in mental disorders. The reason is that movement of people to urban area needs more facilities to be made available and infrastructure to grow. This does not happen in alignment with the increase of population Hence, lack of adequate infrastructure increases the risk of poverty and exposure to environmental adversities. Further this also decreases social support (Desjarlais et al., 1995) as the nuclear families increase in number. Poor people experience environmental and psychological adversity that increases their vulnerability to mental disorders (Patel, 2001).

A report by World Health Organization (WHO) (World Health Organization) has enumerated that mental disorders account for nearly 12% of the global burden of disease. By 2020, these will account for nearly 15% of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) lost to illness. Incidentally, the burden of mental disorders is maximal in young adults, which is considered to be the most productive age of the population. Developing countries are likely to see a disproportionately large increase in the burden attributable to mental disorders in the coming decades (WHO Mental Health Context 2003).

When we refer to psychiatric disorders anxiety and depression are more prevalent among urban women than men and, are believed to be more prevalent in poor than in non-poor urban neighborhoods (Naomar Almeida-Filho et al 2004). The meta analysis by Reddy and Chandrashekhar(1998) revealed higher prevalence of mental disorders in urban area i.e., 80.6%, whereas it was 48.9% in rural area. Mental disorders primarily composed of depression and neurotic disorders.

Increase of nuclear families in urban society has led to increase in cases of violence against women in general. Among them, intimate-partner violence links to alcohol abuse and women’s mental health. Analysis of community-based data from eight urban areas in the developing world indicates that mental and physical abuse of women by their partners is distressingly common with negative consequences for women’s physical and psychological well being (Lori L. Heise et al 1994). Poverty and mental health have a complex and multidimensional relationship. The urbanization leads to forming set of group as “fringe population” who earn on daily basis (Mursaleena Islam etal 2006)

Women are particularly vulnerable and they often disproportionately bear the burden of changes associated with urbanization. Domestic violence is also highly prevalent in urban areas. In both developed and developing countries, women living in urban settings are at greatest risk to be assaulted by their intimates (Kessler RC, Sonnega A, Bromet E, Hughes M, Nelson CB (1995)

(Urbanization and Mental Health by Kalpana Srivastava, 2009)

 With the evidences studied all over the world about the effects of urban living to the individual wellbeing can be cautiously frightening and something that we should all be aware about specially for those who are already living in big cities.

We can find ways to use the researches and studies on urban living and make meaning to it for the improvement of life.

#urbanliving urbanreality

[utaprifanzine]

Shining Live Fanzine: Concept Pitch

I believe @utapri-idol-hell has already mentioned this upcoming project on her blog so, without further delay, this is the completed concept pitch for an SL-themed Utapri fanzine!

(Note: there is also a link to this post on twitter! If you have a twitter account, please consider retweeting the post from this account so that non-tumblr users can also see this!)

I would like to first put emphasis on the fact that this is a concept pitch. That means this is a presentation of the initial idea to anyone who might be interested in this project. At this point in time, most of the rules and concepts are still malleable - they can be changed and shaped according to feedback from this post.

If you are interested in this project (as either a contributor or as someone who would want to acquire a copy of the zine) please consider filling out this feedback form. Any responses will be useful to determine how the zine moves forward, but the feedback is particularly important in regards to the “Application Methods” section of this post (see below).

There are, however, three rules which are already “set” and would not be changed. They are as follows:

This zine would feature work from both artists and writers.

Due to Broccoli’s history with ordering “cease and desist”s against utapri doujin artists, this would be a non-profit zine. Thus, digital copies would be completely free.

The concept for this zine is based on the intention of it being a fun project that would appeal to the majority of the fanbase. Therefore, some rules are set in place to avoid content that might spark conflict and/or be geared towards a specific audience.

Below the cut, this post is split into three sections: Concept, Rules, and Application Methods. Each section is clearly noted with a header. “Concept” covers the general theme, content, and layout; “Rules” covers additional restrictions and/or allowances for the zine content; and “Application Methods” covers various possible ways a writer or artist could possibly apply to do a page for the zine. That last section is particularly important, because at the moment the application method for the zine has yet to be decided and the final decision will depend feedback.

There’s quite a bit of information below, so for anyone who is dyslexic or has any other reading difficulties, the most important information is in bold.

The ask box is also open for anyone who has any additional questions, or would like further expansion on something mentioned in the following text.

Please also consider reblogging this post so more people can see it!

The initial concept for this zine, was that it would (hopefully) be the first in a series of SL-themed zines that followed the chronological release pattern of the in-game events and gachas.

This seemed to be a good way to establish a kind of content equilibrium, so that no specific character/event/gacha appeared too often or too little. The pages would be themed after the events/gachas and each one would have a specific amount of pages allotted to it. Since KLab has only screwed the rotation once thus far, it seems like an easier method of creating balance.

Originally, it was going to be an annual digital zine with a high page count. However, since people have expressed their interest in physical copies of a zine, the concept was revised into something that would also translate well into physical format.

The following are the revised restrictions/guidelines for the current concept of the zine:

The total page count would be 44 pages. This includes the front/back cover, index and closing pages.

The content would cover from the release of the game (Aug/Sept 2017) up through January 2018. This covers 8 gacha and 10 events, not including the SL UR set which would also be featured.

Each event and gacha would be allotted two A4 pages of content - one for art and one for a piece of flash fiction. The cover and its related story would have double that amount: front/back cover + a two page short story.

The zine would have the potential to run in both physical and digital formats. Digital zines would be completely free (hence, non-profit project) however they will still require the purchaser to put in an order/request for the file. There will be no public download link posted.

All contributors are entitled to a digital copy without placing a request. Free physical copies may be a possibility, but that depends on a number of factors (namely the amount of contributors, zine orders, and if a print run is made at all) so I can’t promise anything at this point.

Print runs would be made if there is enough demand for physical copies, and there would only be one run per zine. This is reduce the risk of Broccoli viewing the zine production as a competitive merchandise and thereby becoming offended by the project.

(The following rules were put in place regarding the intentions and concept for the zine. Since this is a concept pitch, each rule is followed by an explanation of why it exists. If you believe any rule is unnecessary, or flawed, please note that in the feedback form! Passive-aggressively ranting about it on twitter doesn’t help!)

The UR Rule

The featured UR pair (for gachas) or the featured UR/SR pair (for events) MUST be the focus of the piece. Other characters can be mentioned and/or appear, but the piece has to be clearly centered on the two featured characters for that set/event. This is to help ensure the balance of content set by following the release patterns.

This goes without saying, but the pieces must also be themed after the event/gacha for which they are the pages for. A simple mention, hint, or acknowledgement toward the set/event isn't strong enough to be considered a theme.

Non-Shining Live Characters Are Allowed

Although the zine will be SL themed, all other characters that are part of the Utapri franchise can be featured within artwork and fiction pieces submitted to the zine. Since they’re official characters, I see no reason to purposely block them out.

The UR rule still applies, however, so these characters cannot become the focus of the pieces.

Keep it PG 13/15

This is partly in place to acknowledge the younger fans of the franchise (as well as those who aren't big fans of higher rated content) and partly because there is no fail-safe way to verify someone's age over the internet.

There are a lot of minors who consume and produce adult content for this fandom, and while their choices are theirs to make (I'm not the fandom police, it's none of my business), I don't want this project to be held responsible for distributing inappropriate content to minors in case issues do arise.

It's also worth noting that this rule does not only apply to sexual content (because some people think R18 only means sex). A piece depicting other mature themes - such as serious cannibalism, gore, or class A drug use - would not be acceptable.

No Romantic Ships

I feel like this is going to be the least popular rule, so the explanation for this is twice as long. Hear me out for a minute, and, if by the end you still think it’s unnecessary, by all means put that on the response form!

There are two main reasons for this rule.

Firstly, although shipping as a concept is extremely popular within fandom, individual ships still only cater to very specific audiences within the fanbase. No matter which way you twist it, no matter the popularity of any given ship, no single ship is universal. Some fans don't even connect to the idea of shipping in the first place.

Under most circumstances, that's completely fine, but within the context of a fanzine that's intended to appeal to as much of the fanbase as possible, allowing ships starts to seem very juxtaposed to that goal.

Case and point: if I have to include an extra contents page that lists all of the ships mentioned inside the zine so people can pick and/or avoid certain ones, that, to me, completely negates the idea of having a zine that most people can just pick up and read without issue.

Secondly, as I'm sure most people already know, ships are a primary source of conflict and motivator for harassment within fandom.

In terms of problems arising from including ships in a fanzine, I'm mainly worried about contributing artists/writers as well as the other admins getting harassed for content they did or didn't include within the zine. As someone who has not only seen utapri fan blogs run offline because of ship-based anon hate, but has also seen people ridiculed and kicked out of groups for not liking a popular ship, I would rather not risk exposing contributors and admins to that kind of toxic behavior.

When thinking about potential application methods for zine contributors, I realized that the traditional method - where people send in entries and these entries are reviewed/accepted/denied by an admin panel - may not be the best suited for a project that a) is supposed to be fun, not stressful and b) is looking for as many applicants as possible to hopefully be a success.

After brainstorming several alternative ways that applications could be handled, I decided the best possible way to choose one, would be to ask people who are interested in contributing to the zine how they would prefer to apply. After collecting the feedback, the most popular application method would be the one used for this zine.

The following are three different possible application methods. Each has a description of how it would work followed by a list of pros and cons for that method.

Method 1: First Come, First Serve

This method is very well-known, and very straightforward. Essentially, the list of available pages is posted at a specified time and date, and contributors would simply message the zine admins to claim whichever pages they want to contribute for. The first person to claim that particular page is the person who that page is allocated to.

Method 2: Random Chance

There are two variations of this method.

Application for Specific Pages: using this method, applicants would apply for specific pages at any point during the application period. Then, once the period has ended, the contributing artist/writer would be drawn at random for each page.

General Application: using this method, applicants would apply to the zine in general during the application period then, once the period has ended, the contributing writers/artists for all the pages would be drawn from the same pool. Applicants would be allowed to veto certain characters/sets/events and trade among each other if desired.

Method 3: Traditional Application

This is the method that’s most often used to manage and select applications for a zine.

An applicant would send in an entry form during the application period that contains, among other possible things, which pages they would like to apply for and an example of their work. At the end of the period, all entry forms are reviewed by the admins and the contributors for each page are decided by majority/unanimous vote. 

And that’s everything! Please consider filling out the feedback form if you have the time!

#utapri #utapri fanzine #uta no prince sama #concept pitch #SLfanzineV1 #looong post

[internetremix]

I was wondering... Do you any of you have tips for a rookie GM? I'm setting up a game night here soon and I'm stressing the heck out over it.

Alex: No matter what game system you play it's usually quite intimidating because there are like 600 pages of information to digest. At any given time you need to have memorized only, like, thirty. At the end of the day most tabletop games are just two things - math and improv. Admittedly things that, outside of tabletop games, people go out of their way to avoid, but still.

Stress can lead people to get things done fast but also get things done sloppy. You don't need to plan out every single detail of what the characters might encounter eventually in a session. You can flesh out a couple of interesting people, places, or things you want them to see and just keep a scratch card of notes and traits for if/when they go off the beaten path. Remember, no matter what you plan, there is no accounting for the actions of players, and rolling with them provides a far better experience than slamming your fist down and saying "NO" to every deviation.

And above all else, remember that tabletop games are a collaborative effort. People come together to play games, tell stories, and shoot the shit. If shooting the shit overtakes the game you can rein that in a little but at the end of the day everyone's there voluntarily to have fun, and no one is there to see anyone fail.So to recap -

1. You are the arbiter of rules no matter what the book says. You can double-check later and take notes for future games if it becomes an issue but generally you only need to have in mind rules that are actively going to be used in game. If you don't know the exact way to handle something just make up what the closest action would be and if the player rolls what you think is well enough to do it, they did it.

2. If you don't have time to take notes on every single thing the players might encounter, congratulations, you're an average person. You only need a few based on the following factors - what do you want the players to do, how do you think they're going to do it, and do you have something prepared for when they go off the beaten path.

3. Have fun! Seriously, it's called a tabletop GAME, not a tabletop dictatorship.

Kristen: All of my games are Tabletop Dictatorships, all of them. Unfortunately I'm a terrible, weak-willed dictator so this helps nothing.

Alex: Discord Murder Party is different. Mafia/Werewolf operates way differently than D&D and needs a GM SPECIFICALLY so that players don't go off the rails.

Kristen: You are 100% correct.

God my first tabletop I ever DMed for I made my own thing and wrote like... twenty pages for my first session. And then as soon as I started, my players were like HEY I WANNA EXPLORE THE SHOPS

"O-oh.... y-yeah, here's uh... heeeere's a list of shops..."

So then I had to improv like... five shops and make multiple NPCs on the fly and then I found out "it turns out writing an entire paragraph for every NPC is an awful idea because you can't fucking read those notes mid-session"

So my point is don't do that.

Juno: Oh yeah. Last night I had to make up a guy named Lucas on the spot because JoJo's character wanted to convince a guy not to kill them

Kristen: YEP I ran the generic 5e DnD starter for a group of friends and somehow it went from a generic "you all hunt down and kill a bunch of goblins and a bugbear in a cave, way to go" to "You spared a Goblin who has a ridiculous Brooklyn accent who hates his job and now you're starting a ridiculous worker's revolution and this has ended with you all enlisting every other goblin you were supposed to fight into swarming the bugbear boss. Okay."

Juno: I mean. That's a pretty bomb plot twist if you ask me.

Kristen: Oh yes, I enjoyed it immensely. Also really in the context of a DnD game I'm pretty sure that shouldn't be doable cause I don't think any of them were supposed to be able to speak common. If your players are setting themselves up for a more interesting story and you have to bend the rules a bit to make it happen, go for it. One of the most important things for GMing is making your players feel like they have agency- as Alex said, it's collaborative, it's not just you telling your players a story.

Another thing to keep in mind is what sort of players you have. I usually prefer to play with people who are more into the RP/story aspect, but some people are gonna be more into them fighty fights and mechanics and such. Which is fine and can work, it's just a matter of striking a balance in your game.  I usually try to tailor things in such a way that everyone's getting a chance to get what they want out of a game and their shot at the spotlight, in whatever manner that takes. For me it's helped to ask my players directly "hey, what do you want out of this game? Do you have any ideas or anything you're really into?"

Mostly what I'm saying is just try to keep in mind what your players are in this for, since that contributes a lot to how much fun you all have.

Atwas: Something that's helped me a lot is to not stress out or stop the game entirely to double check rules. It sort of kills momentum. In my experience, ruling a situation and then looking something up later is a lot less stressful than the pressure of putting something completely on pause while you flip through a book/google something.

If you're doing stuff in real life, I would recommend making a little cheat sheet of your PC's information. My DM screen has sticky notes with each party characters HP, AC, Passive Perception, and Spell Save DC to keep things streamlined.

Kristen: Oooo smurt

Alex: Hell yeah dude. Also there are custom DM screens you can get tailor-made to give you quick rules references. Fairly cheap on Amazon.

Atwas: Also your players don't know if you're winging stuff unless you tell them. ;^)

Also also don't be scared of bumping monster hp up or down depending on a fight or having monsters run away or call in reinforcements. If you go off script in an encounter--surprise! Nobody knows but you. I did that quite a bit when I was starting out because balancing encounters is a bit of an art and CR is a loose guideline at best.

Also also also the point of the game isn't to win. Don't fall into the trap of "beating your players" or stuff like that. Imo that kind of messes with the table dynamics unless 100% of everyone is on board with that type of game.

Kristen: Yeah, don't fall into that and also be careful not to go into the mindset of "punishing" your players if they do something dumb. Like if it's a silly "you did this thing and consequences have gone WILDLY outside of what you expect wheee", awesome, but I've had DMs who basically would act like if you didn't somehow read their minds and find their exact solution, welp you made a dumb choice and now everyone is penalized for it. Made for a pretty toxic atmosphere, do not recommend. Kind goes hand in hand with "don't be a tabletop dictator".

Atwas: oh gods i could go on and on about how punishing someone in game never works for out of game behaviour but i digress. also please don't feel afraid to talk to your players, even if having adult conversations is difficult.

Juno: Cause and effect is the biggest thing to think about I think, especially in a DMing situation.

Alex: For instance, siccing a Revenant on the party? Thavagath made a bad decision in character, that's the natural consequence, he gets a chance to save his ass. Someone makes a dick joke about your carefully crafted NPC? Don't be a dick right back.

Atwas: sweats, trying to think back to the last time a dick joke was made in Fallen Empires

Alex: Like I think the last major one was Phill pulling a muscle stretching so hard to make a joke for five minutes about the "Male Room" rather than the "Mail Room"

But then we - wait for it - ACTUALLY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OUT OF GAME and stuff like that doesn't pop up any more.

Atwas: WHAT? SPEAKING LIKE REASONABLE ADULTS?!?! IN MY TABLETOP?!?!?! it's really useful. please have those conversations, even if they're uncomfortable. and if something is becoming an issue, bring it up sooner rather than later--turns out that people can't change stuff if they don't know about it! Most people want to stay friends after a campaign after all.

Jojo: Have your story planned, npcs, and what you want an end goal to be. Make sure it's all planned out BEFORE asking people to join it. And if you need a second DM to help you with Dice or story, then that's ok too! I'm still a beginner DM myself, so that's the best advice I can give

These guys are pros, so listen to them

Phill: Heheh... male room

Alex: Phill no you'll pull your hamstring again

Phill:

Atwas: what do you think is Phill's average Henderson rating?

Alex: Phill has at least One Henderson in him, he destroyed Underdark to the point of we can't go back to it ever now.

Phill: I mean. Yeah. Honestly, I could've very easily seen phresh reach a 1.75 hendersons eventually.

Atwas: I'd say 1.75 works. 2 is still out of reach, but one day...

Xander: Underdark is cursed content and deserved better

Atwas: How many of he players had that as their first campaign? 3/5?

Xander: I believe so

Alex: Uprising and I had played before, I don't think Jojo, Dawn, or Phill had.

Xander: I'm probably gonna reboot Underdark one day. Wipe the slate clean. Probably not gonna be done on IR

Alex: We did it! We reached two Hendersons!

Xander: Two full Hendersons.

Phill: time unveil my new original character. Blesh

Alex: Blerish

Xander: More like Blemish

#ask the ir crew #advice #dungeons and dragons #dndbags #as always this starts as good advice and then devolves into nonsense #Anonymous

[jojotier]

The Pressure of Koito’s Military Upbringing, from the Perspective of a Military Brat

Hey there- I’ve been seeing a lot of meta for Koito. Not all of it is something I agree with, but I think that @chibivesicle brings up a good point that many people tend to gloss over- the pressure of being in a military family, and the goals that get automatically set for you, sometimes from a very young age.

For reference, this is drawing on my own experience, being from a military family. My father was a sergeant back in 2003 (so you can guess where he was when I was little) and I grew up partially on a military base. All the men on my father’s side have gone to war, while many of the men on my mother’s side, including my grandfather, have also enlisted in the army, despite mostly living in Puerto Rico. 

When relaying this, a few things need to be kept in mind- this is the perspective of a modern army kid from the US, so the cultural context is different from that of Meiji era Japan. It should also be noted that my parents only rallied behind my being in the military simply because my brother is unable to join, and that unlike Koito, I ultimately refused to enlist.

However, this is a great jumping off point for one of the biggest things about being a kid from a really intensive military family: more often than not, you are expected to live your life centered, in some way, around the military.

For myself, the only reason why my parents ultimately agreed to me not enlisting was that I was forced to promise them that I would work with veterans for the rest of my life. This mirrors, in some way, Koito’s own perceived “”flexibility””- sure, he wouldn’t join the navy, but he’d be in the army. He’d still get to see that “glory of battle” and put his skills to use. 

The only other reason why they agreed is because they expect my younger sisters to be more involved. Koito, unlike myself, doesn’t seem to have any older or younger brothers that can be in the army (or at least, he’s never mentioned this), so it’s very likely that he has more intense pressure on himself. He’ll be the one who carries on the great family legacy- so he absolutely must be enlisted somewhere. It should also be noted that during this time period, Imperial Japan placed high importance on militarism and serving one’s nation for the glory of all. Koito has additional, societal pressures to join that I’m personally not all that qualified to get into.

Admiral Koito’s speech about his son learning how to lead men also eerily reminds me of things my own father tries to tell me to convince me to enlist, even still- “It’ll teach you real discipline. You value life differently. You become a better person.” Worthy of being a “hero”. The last bit is implied, but it echoes a sentiment seemingly shared by military families- that being in the army is not only a rite of passage into real adulthood, but the way to become a better human.

Because when you grow up on a military base, surrounded by soldiers going to and from war, talking big about how they’ll defend everyone at home- your view of heroism begins to become warped. You start to only be able to see the “big picture”- to think about how the “honor” of a nation must be defended from evil, corrupting forces. And everyone around you pushes that view- pushes you to idolize and discuss and view being a soldier as the Ultimate Good you can do.

The only real choice. 

This is likely the pressure that Koito grew up in. It didn’t matter what he may have said he wanted to do as a kid- the expectation is that he “grows up”. That he wises up. That he go into the army, and bring honor to the family and country, and continue his father’s legacy. This isn’t even to say about the overemphasis of carrying on family legacies, or the sheer ignoring of possible mental health after the fighting is over- the expectation is always to be willing to lay down your life.

This is where things diverge a bit.  At least for me, we stopped living on a military base. We stopped living around a lot of family, and around a lot of soldiers. The people really pushing me to go into the military dwindled down to only two. I began to want to look at other alternatives- and I forced my parents into letting me do so.

Koito lived with even more intense pressure for a little over 20 years. 

It cannot be overstated, how much that background would have impacted Koito’s personality. His views of heroism only include the great and powerful men- those who have the ability to make countries, or those like Tsurumi, who promises to give “heroes” like the 7th Division their due, which has been so cruelly taken from them by the government. His desire to have been part of the fighting sooner. His yearning for war. It all makes sense in the context of these pressures

The thing is, there isn’t any telling how much of this internalized militarism is because of his upbringing, and how much is because of his own tendencies. His drive to be the best could be applied to any number of pursuits, and his athleticism in the circus arc can be contributed to either an aristocratic upbringing or a desire to train his body for combat. 

This isn’t to say that Koito didn’t want this pressure, either- we don’t know enough about Koito’s childhood, enough about his dreams and aspirations as a child, to make a definitive statement on whether or not the army has been his dream from day 1.

However, it does factor into his insecurities- because now, it’s not just a matter of being a good soldier. He has to be a worthy soldier. A soldier who can lead men victoriously; one who can carry on the family legacy; one who can be good enough to earn the title of a “hero”. 

Anyone can be a good soldier. Someone from a military family must be the best- the shining beacon to lead all others by example. 

If Koito can’t even lead the expedition of Karafuto, then what else is he? A failure? Inexperienced? 

Who’s to say?

tl;dr: When you’re from a military family, you’re expected to build your entire life around the military. Koito’s insecurities come from a fear of failure.

#golden kamuy #golden kamui #koito otonoshin #meta #military #i am. very tired.

[elizas-writing]

Thirteen Reasons Why is Torture Porn; Using Graphic Violence to Make a Point

CW/TW: Mentions of suicide, rape/sexual violence, physical assault, and everything the Thirteen Reasons Why crew were told NOT to do by mental health experts

If you are in a crisis, don’t let a poorly written TV show tell you what to do; call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or the Suicide Crisis Line at 1-800-784-2433. Surround yourself with people who will support you without judgement and are willing to take the extra step to understand. If you’re struggling to find regular mental health resources, check out here for more options. You still have a life ahead even if it takes some trial and error to figure out what the hell to do.

So Netflix released the second season of Thirteen Reasons Why, and, what a shock, people hate it for upping the graphic violence and rape. I have no plans to watch it myself after reading through all the triggers, but suffice it to say that so little was learned from the first season. Plus, I’d rather not subject myself to that much distress for a TV show I knew there was no point in continuing after the first season. Everyone’s accounts across Twitter and Tumblr of the new season seem to match up, so I’m going off of that for this piece.

If you haven’t seen my review of the first season (with and without spoilers), I found that it definitely went too far to make a point and had really confusing characterizations, but there were select scenes, when they were done right, were kinda worth the wait-- keyword being “kinda.” There was a germ of an idea begging for good writing, but got sucked into shock value for the sake of shock value. And the second season offers no promises to improve.

Of the multiple graphic scenes of this season, the one which sparked the most outrage was the final episode “Bye” as Tyler (a serial stalker) is brutalized and raped by his male classmates. As a result of being pushed too far, he brings practically a whole arsenal of guns to shoot up the school during a dance, but Clay peacefully disarms him before he can go through with it.

So apparently the creators saw the criticism of season one and thought, “So, you want to see more graphic violence, rape, and terribly confusing characterization?”

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, creator and showrunner, Brian Yorkey, wanted to explore more of Tyler’s psyche and “how a troubled man might be driven to consider this very difficult choice” after the bullying and ostracization he experienced in the first season. While I’d never wish rape on anyone, even fictional people--and a bunch of characters who mistreated him are total hypocrites--, Tyler is still beyond redemption for never understanding how his behavior destroyed Hannah’s sense of safety. The show puts him through that much brutalization to force audiences to feel sympathetic towards him while never critically analyzing why his stalking and coping mechanisms were wrong and unhealthy, regardless of what else was going on in his life.

It also promotes the dangerous idea that social outcasts and/or victims of bullying are likely to eventually become school shooters, which completely ignores factors like toxic masculinity or racist associations-- as was the case for shootings like Parkland and Santa Fe from this year-- which contribute to a white male sense of entitlement. Even though the lapses in logic are all over the place in the show-- particularly Clay having an emotional breakdown with Tyler, even though he made things worse in the first place by sharing revenge porn--, people had every right to distance themselves from Tyler as much as possible.

He’s a creep in how he objectifies his female classmates, constantly collects sensitive photos for blackmail, and his main outlet for anger becomes shooting guns at bottles and live animals, because society as a whole tends to only show men how to be emotional through anger and nothing else. This doesn’t help that when he testified, he apparently wanted to befriend Hannah to take photos of her to which she rejected (rightfully so) and thus his stalking began. It’s already so back-and-forth among viewers if Hannah committed suicide out of revenge or actual mental health deterioration, and subtly putting blame on her for rejecting Tyler is up there as one of the worst things they did to her. Not to mention throughout the second season, Tyler is anonymously putting up polaroids around the school of incriminating evidence in the case, particularly with Jessica, who is already stressed as is coming to terms that she was raped by Bryce.

It’s upon these scenes that I realized Netflix’s Thirteen Reasons Why can’t decide who it’s supposed to be for. It’s not for teenagers with how unrealistic and unidentifiable the characters are, especially coming from an adaptation of an 11-year-old book with an outdated understanding of teen mental health, bullying and suicide. It’s most definitely not for mentally ill folks with a history of suicidal thoughts because it’s so graphic, violent, and triggering, and on top of which, is grossly inaccurate on how depression works. Are they making it for the same people who can stomach Game of Thrones easily?

Above all else, does graphic violence have any point in film or television?

As mentioned in their first Beyond the Reasons special, the writers argued about needing that authenticity for Hannah’s rape and suicide scenes “to be painful to watch,” but it’s really not worth it if it has nothing else to say besides “look at this excess violence; you need to feel bad.” If you need to spoon feed your audience an explicit rape or suicide scene to emphasize how horrible those things are, it’s bad writing. They made the same mistakes with Tyler’s brutalization, which like I said, only exists to make you feel sorry for him and almost forget he’s an irredeemable character.

Film and television are super creative visual mediums; there are ways to convey an emotion or theme without triggering content or alienating your supposed intended audience.

I mentioned this before in my first review, but Perks of Being a Wallflower did incredibly well in portraying child molestation and an attempted suicide without going too far. The scenes of the molestation are cleverly cut and mostly in shadow where all you can see is Charlie’s aunt rubbing his leg and hear her whispering “Don’t wake your sister.” And when he’s mentally breaking down and suicidal, the camera just pans to the knife slowly before immediately cutting to the police breaking in, and then Charlie wakes up in the psychiatric ward. It’s a gut-wrenching scene every time, but it’s also smart in remembering the intended audience and walking that line before it becomes too much. It’s a great depiction of an anxiety attack where everything overwhelms you at once, and sometimes there’s gaps in your memory in what happened while in that state of panic. It’s never addressed what happened between the police arriving and Charlie waking up in the psychiatric ward. But it doesn’t need to give those answers; what matters most is that Charlie is safe and finally going to get the help he needs.

A scene can be way more powerful in what it omits rather than what it explicitly shows. What you imagine might happen can be more exciting and/or terrifying than what any director could have put on the screen themselves.

Early horror and thriller films are among the most successful of this, especially if they’re directed by Alfred Hitchcock, the Master of Suspense. Sure, these films seem pretty cheesy when we in the 21st century are used to seeing much more violence and body horror, but they have their mark on cinematic history for a reason, and for an audience in the 1960s, this was horrifying. Take the famous shower scene from Psycho.

Instead of showing the knife penetrating flesh, it’s all edited in near-rapid cuts of “Mother” missing, Marion screaming and trying to defend herself, and shots of her feet with blood dripping into the water. It focuses more on the vulnerability of the situation, when there’s no chance for escape as you’re cornered against the wall and how quickly it all happens before you can react, complete with fast-paced editing and those high pitched violins. That kind of defenselessness freaked out actress Janet Leigh so much that she couldn’t take showers again without locking the doors and windows and leaving the shower door open. Hell, that still tends to be a common reaction for a lot of people who see this movie, and all without needing to show actual stab wounds.

And this trick in omitting some elements and highlighting others works well across genres for any scene motivated by any strong emotion. There’s probably about 50 different Disney films I can cite that do this well, but the one that sticks out the most is Tarzan.

Aside from Phil Collins singing, some animal noises, and a baby cooing, there is no spoken dialogue for the first 7 minutes, which is a really long time for an animated family film. Yeah, the song kinda hamfists in the themes of family and love from the get-go, but it’s otherwise a great introduction. You see these two families just starting out before they’re cut short by tragedy; one with the death of a baby gorilla and the other with the death of Tarzan’s parents, both at the jaws of Sabor. The former is only indicated by the sounds of the baby gorilla’s screams echoing in the jungle while we only see the aftermath of the latter through Kala’s perspective when she finds Tarzan.

Obviously with it being a Disney family film, they’re not going to actually show Sabor tearing up a baby gorilla or the human parents. As such, they have to rely on context clues for the audience to pick up and piece together everything else with their imaginations. When you think about it long enough, it’s a really dark beginning on how quickly unexpected tragedy can destroy everything you hold dear. And it’s all accomplished without going too far.

Does this mean we need to omit graphic violence entirely for a film? Not necessarily as it very much depends on what the film is and your target audience. But omission is a great practice in a story to explore what else you have to say besides “Look at this traumatizing shit. You should feel bad.” Of course, we’ll always have mindless films which just exist to be violent, and historical narratives and/or social commentaries in some cases need violence to portray the reality of a situation. But when you’re making something about mental illness with intent to help those like your characters, it helps to listen to what your audience and mental health experts actually want to see in such a narrative. And like I said before, the Thirteen Reasons Why creators completely ignored criticisms of season one and continued making the same mistakes just to milk their product beyond the source material. It has nothing else to say or do besides being needlessly gritty as opposed to creating likable characters or understandable motivations.

The only exception to this rule I can even think of is Deadpool 2.

I know it seems counter-intuitive to compare Deadpool 2 and Thirteen Reasons Why given the former’s more excessive violence, but bare with me here. I stand by that Deadpool 2 is way better at handling themes of suicide and violence in two hours than Thirteen Reasons Why ever did in 26 episodes.

The major differences? The intended audience’s expectations and well-written characterization.

Most everyone going in already knows what Wade Wilson is like. And this is definitely not the first time he attempted suicide in such grandiose and gratuitous fashion. The first film established itself as a wildly violent parody of superhero films, and the sequel continues that by poking fun at recent trends of these films going darker and grittier. In any other film, this would cross the line, but because it’s Deadpool, the excessively grotesque violence is to be expected. It succeeds in capturing the shock and dark humor (i.e Wade blowing himself up with his apartment, knowing fully well he can’t die) while still maintaining the weight of his emotional turmoil.

We actually get to know who Wade is and why he acts the way he does. There’s no drawn out mystery or fact-checking other sources or confronting side characters we don’t care about. We get his perspective alone, and that’s all we need to see his grief over Vanessa escalating to self-destructive behaviors and how he tries to find some family and meaning in life without her, even though her death is retconned in the end anyway. It’s all played for laughs, but you can’t help but feel sorry for Wade because he loved Vanessa so much, and they were a wonderfully sweet couple.

Another thing Deadpool 2 does significantly better than Thirteen Reasons Why is not forcing gray morality where it doesn’t belong, particularly when Wade tries to save Russell. It doesn’t matter if his actions lead to a horrible future; he’s just a traumatized kid who needs a proper family who will guide him. A lot of X-Men films try to play the heroes as the bigger people who are above murder and revenge. Yet Deadpool 2 doesn’t punish those like Russell with understandable hatred and motivations. It is very upfront that if you harm children, you deserve whatever hell comes your way-- which really hits home as Russell was put through metaphorical gay conversion therapy.

Meanwhile, I can’t even be bothered to care about anyone in Thirteen Reasons Why. The second season out of nowhere piles on excuse after excuse to justify the characters’ actions without them ever facing guilt or consequences. Anyone else with a remote chance at sympathy is just put through more emotional torture without rhyme or reason. I don’t care who has a drug problem, who’s gay, who dated who, the he-said-she-said, etc etc. If you’re trying to preach the ever-tired “it gets better” bullshit, when does it actually start to get better?

Sadly, Thirteen Reasons Why can’t find that point, and I don’t trust it will given how little the creators learned from the first season’s criticisms. They don’t care about creating a narrative to help mentally ill teens. They have nothing else to say or do than to make money and shoe-horned in so much graphic violence under the guise of being “authentic” to compensate for a tired Degrassi knockoff which would’ve disappeared if it wasn’t based on a well-known YA novel. Graphic violence in media is a tool to be used carefully, and of course it will vary project to project. But if it just exists to pad your “deep, meaningful” story instead of developing characters, motivations and relationships, then it’s cheap, lazy torture porn, and it’s bad writing.

If you enjoyed this analysis and what I do here, consider buying me a ko-fi to show your support!

#thirteen reasons why #13 reasons why #netflix #tv #tv show #graphic violence #deadpool #deadpool 2 #tarzan #disney tarzan #psycho #alfred hitchcock #perks of being a wallflower #analysis #my writing #essay #opinion #editorial

[vrwork]

Grim Fandango Remastered - Double Fine - 2015

Commenting on the commentary.

One of my most significant direct contributions to a video game was my work on the developer commentary for Grim Fandango Remastered. I joined the project as a newly promoted assistant producer in summer 2014 and had to take on many roles that were new to me. In the case of the commentary, I had to help plan the recording sessions in which members of the development team talked for about four hours per group. One interesting limitation was that we needed to limit the recording sessions to four hours but a game playthrough is much longer, so some of the commentary was recorded only from watching the first half of the game. I sat through all the sessions and jotted down notes to remember the timecodes for particularly engaging commentary.

I had to take on the responsibility for the commentary audio as well since our audio team was stretched thin working on this game and Broken Age, both games that have a ton of dialogue. I had to pore over those sixteen or so hours and pick out the most interesting commentary to include in the game. That required listening to the complete tracks and marking the segments to extract with the Audacity audio editing app. Thankfully, Audacity includes a feature which allows highlighting segments with a text comment and then exporting those segments with the comment as the filename. I had to consider the commentary that should appear in certain locations and those anecdotes that were more generalized and could be placed anywhere in the game. I was also mindful of the length of each segment, since I felt that players don’t want to be stuck in a room for too long as they wait for commentary to play. It was an unfortunate limitation of the game that commentary could only within the room it is triggered. The final commentary in the game is a bit over two hours and fifteen minutes, but I believe my original extracts added up to more than three hours.

Once extracted, I had to design the commentary’s placement by selecting the places in the game where the player could look at an object or enter a room to receive a prompt that indicated they could press a button to play the commentary. This design document was for the programmers on the team who would have to hook up the triggers and the audio that should play when that trigger is hit. I didn’t have much context for this type of design except for the commentary from Portal, so I modeled my choices on my memories of Portal’s implementation. As for the commentary that would play, I was mindful of various factors. I wanted to make sure commentary was about the room or situation in which the player was currently located as much as possible, but I peppered in the more general anecdotes in some places, especially the latter half of the game which wasn’t viewed and commented on by some of the guests who came in to record. I also wanted to make sure that I balanced out the commentary as much as possible to include everyone and make sure the player heard different bits of commentary from the range of personalities and roles of the participants.

So eventually I had a defined list of audio clips representing all of the commentary that would play in the game and the programmers had the audio clips working in the game. Initially, I didn’t think we would need subtitles for these commentary clips, but I was convinced by Mark Cooke from Shiny Shoe (co-developer of all three of Double Fine’s remastered LucasArts games) that we should have subtitles, and that missing subtitles would be a huge omission and a let-down for the fans. I came around on the idea and agreed to take on the role of transcriber as well. I used a transcription app that opens a audio clip and allows the user to type out the commentary as they listen. It was months of work to transcribed it all myself. The final step was to also fill out a JSON file or something similar that outlined when each audio clip began and ended, which was required for determining when the subtitles should appear and disappear on the screen. It was well worth the effort to make sure that the subtitles were there for players who need or prefer that option in their games.

We began work on the game in summer 2014 and finished the base game by December, with a release in late January 2015 and several updates and ports to other platforms afterward. This was all in addition to my other duties both as assistant producer on this project and for Broken Age, which was due to release in spring 2015. This formative experience always stands out to me both for the first time I had my hands so directly on a game’s content, but also for the opportunity and trust I received from the team and in particular the executive producer, Matt Hansen, to take on the responsibility and make decisions that would directly impact the gameplay experience. This is how Double Fine operated as a matter of course, but it was an empowering and daunting first project on which to flex those underutilized muscles.