#gen Xers problems

[purelypacino]

doesn’t change that she’s supposed to represent the middle class WASPS that looked down upon Italians and is xenophobic because gen zers who watch this movie have no idea Italians were extremely discriminated against and it goes hand in hand with the godfather

You're probably aware that we are not living in a utopia. I'm not going to assume that Gen Zers haven't been on the receiving end of some type of discrimination. To say that they're all ignorant of that particular experience (the Italian-American one) is ignorant in itself. The expectation of such knowledge is also rooted in Americentrism, but let me not stray from my point.

I'm confident that there are still immigrants who know, and whose children know, what it's like to be newly arrived and called names and told to go back to where they came from or admonished for their broken English. Immigration didn't end with the closure of Ellis Island.

If they haven't encountered it firsthand, they've been made aware of it through their family history. It's part of mine on all sides: Polish, Italian, even Scottish. My Italian great-grandparents settled in a city that was almost like Little Italy, there were so many of them. Still, they encountered discrimination. We've got stories for days.

Some old ten-gallon-hatted cowboy with an accent like microwaved grits told my dad in 1972 that his Scottish accent would be a problem. He wouldn't hire him. His dearth of Canadian experience stood in his way more than once. He didn't even have to go to the trouble of Anglicizing his first and last name the way the other sides of my family did theirs. So, I know about it! My stories are not unique.

I get that certain events and experiences don't always get the exposure that they deserve and that the further away from them we get, the more important it is to keep their lessons alive. But again, just because you've run across a handful of people who don't know something that you know, it doesn't mean that everyone born after 1997 is clueless. Nobody is born knowing everything.

If any of us ever want to bridge the gap between generations, we can't approach the other with an attitude of superiority and ultimate authority. If they don't know, they can learn, but not if we treat them like close-minded doofuses.

#the godfather #kay adams #and tbh the movie doesn't deal with it as deeply as the book does #you've got older people who hark back to the non-existent good old days when 'nobody cared about colour or creed' #not just boomers but gen xers who think that everything is too woke now and not like the world that they grew up in #when we were raised on socially-conscious tv and after-school specials lmao #everything had a message then too #this isn't strictly a gen z problem #my mom's cousin was also a professor/historian/author who wrote about the italian-canadian immigrant experience from multiple perspectives #because parts of our family settled in the US and became more italian-american than canadian even though some of them were born here

[awkward-teabag]

So tired of everything being derailed by racists.

Want to talk about jobs? Blame immigrants.

Want to talk about the state of housing? Blame immigrants.

Want to talk about post-secondary education? Blame immigrants.

Want to talk about healthcare? Blame immigrants.

Want to talk about the state of the economy in general? Blame immigrants.

And it's never about the systems in place that lead to immigration or the how companies exploit young workers from elsewhere in the world (by taking advantage of their inexperience, their lack of support network, taking their money, and so on), it's all about how those dastardly non-whites are trying to screw honest Canadians out of everything by taking advantage of us, and they're personally going after you.

You can be talking about something and even be open to talking about the complex issue that is immigration but it immediately gets taken over by THEY TOOK OUR JERBS! assholes.

It's at the point where as soon as immigrants/immigration comes up, I peace out unless I know the person and can expect them to have a point beyond bigotry and fascism.

Because it's never about our systems, decade(s) of neglect, neoliberalism or conservatism, or anything like that, it's about how selfish, rich, and anti-white brown kids are and things would be perfectly fine if not for them.

#seriously i have heard so many people say the reason why housing is so bad #is because immigrants come from cultures where sharing a room is normal #so that's why it costs $2k to rent a room in a house you share with 4 other adults #it can't possibly be because the lack of social housing or that landlords were given a free pass to do that #or that many of our politicians have 'investment properties' including the federal housing minister #or that students (esp female students) end up being taken advantage of with housing #'cause living with a guy who rapes you for $500/month is feasible while $2k/month is beyond your means #and is preferable to dropping out and being homeless #also all it takes is one tiktok video of an immigrant saying they're taking advantage of something #and the racists will run with it and say *all* immigrants are doing that #e.g. that immigrants are taking food out of our mouths because someone said they go to food banks to get cheap/free food #i'm sure some of it online is psyops #but these sentiments have existed for a long time but now people have no problem saying them to your face #emboldened by american propaganda and pp fearmongering and appealing to xenophobia #also it should be noted since i was a kid it's been warned about how the country's economy couldn't be sustained without another baby boom #once boomers and older gen xers retired #immigration literally keeps our economy from utterly collapsing because we don't have enough workers to replace retiring ones #or enough workers to pay pensioners #it is a massive massive complex issue that goes back decades #and sure the federal government is complicit in all of it #but again for decades and that includes the conservatives who supposedly would fix everything if only we voted them in again #i'm far from a fan of trudeau but this started well before him #and you can't even criticize him without it being derailed to be about xenophobia or being assumed to be a fellow bigot #hell i avoid criticizing singh because the moment you do you're assumed to be racist or a fellow racist #canada is a fucking racist and xenophobic country and has always been so #stop assuming we're not or that we're no where near as bad as america or uk tories or anything like that #if you can believe that the british queen wasn't a nice old lady who never did anything wrong and the british monarchy is perfectly benign #you can believe that canada's pr and propaganda is wrong and it's not a good country #and maybe listen to canadians about this instead of what media tells you canada is like and how canadians are

[timesoaker]

Gen Z does Gen X 80s Dance Party

#gen x vs gen z #gen xers #gen z shit #gen z things #gen z kids #gen z problems #millennial #sexy dance #dancing #dancers #dance moves #Madonna vogue dance

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Big Tech disrupted disruption

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/08/permanent-overlords/#republicans-want-to-defund-the-police

Before "disruption" turned into a punchline, it was a genuinely exciting idea. Using technology, we could connect people to one another and allow them to collaborate, share, and cooperate to make great things happen.

It's easy (and valid) to dismiss the "disruption" of Uber, which "disrupted" taxis and transit by losing $31b worth of Saudi royal money in a bid to collapse the world's rival transportation system, while quietly promising its investors that it would someday have pricing power as a monopoly, and would attain profit through price-gouging and wage-theft.

Uber's disruption story was wreathed in bullshit: lies about the "independence" of its drivers, about the imminence of self-driving taxis, about the impact that replacing buses and subways with millions of circling, empty cars would have on traffic congestion. There were and are plenty of problems with traditional taxis and transit, but Uber magnified these problems, under cover of "disrupting" them away.

But there are other feats of high-tech disruption that were and are genuinely transformative – Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, RSS, and more. These disruptive technologies altered the balance of power between powerful institutions and the businesses, communities and individuals they dominated, in ways that have proven both beneficial and durable.

When we speak of commercial disruption today, we usually mean a tech company disrupting a non-tech company. Tinder disrupts singles bars. Netflix disrupts Blockbuster. Airbnb disrupts Marriott.

But the history of "disruption" features far more examples of tech companies disrupting other tech companies: DEC disrupts IBM. Netscape disrupts Microsoft. Google disrupts Yahoo. Nokia disrupts Kodak, sure – but then Apple disrupts Nokia. It's only natural that the businesses most vulnerable to digital disruption are other digital businesses.

And yet…disruption is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the tech sector itself. Five giant companies have been running the show for more than a decade. A couple of these companies (Apple, Microsoft) are Gen-Xers, having been born in the 70s, then there's a couple of Millennials (Amazon, Google), and that one Gen-Z kid (Facebook). Big Tech shows no sign of being disrupted, despite the continuous enshittification of their core products and services. How can this be? Has Big Tech disrupted disruption itself?

That's the contention of "Coopting Disruption," a new paper from two law profs: Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Matthew Wansley (Yeshiva U):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713845

The paper opens with a review of the literature on disruption. Big companies have some major advantages: they've got people and infrastructure they can leverage to bring new products to market more cheaply than startups. They've got existing relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. People trust them.

Diversified, monopolistic companies are also able to capture "involuntary spillovers": when Google spends money on AI for image recognition, it can improve Google Photos, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps and many other products. A startup with just one product can't capitalize on these spillovers in the same way, so it doesn't have the same incentives to spend big on R&D.

Finally, big companies have access to cheap money. They get better credit terms from lenders, they can float bonds, they can tap the public markets, or just spend their own profits on R&D. They can also afford to take a long view, because they're not tied to VCs whose funds turn over every 5-10 years. Big companies get cheap money, play a long game, pay less to innovate and get more out of innovation.

But those advantages are swamped by the disadvantages of incumbency, all the various curses of bigness. Take Arrow's "replacement effect": new companies that compete with incumbents drive down the incumbents' prices and tempt their customers away. But an incumbent that buys a disruptive new company can just shut it down, and whittle down its ideas to "sustaining innovation" (small improvements to existing products), killing "disruptive innovation" (major changes that make the existing products obsolete).

Arrow's Replacement Effect also comes into play before a new product even exists. An incumbent that allows a rival to do R&D that would eventually disrupt its product is at risk; but if the incumbent buys this pre-product, R&D-heavy startup, it can turn the research to sustaining innovation and defund any disruptive innovation.

Arrow asks us to look at the innovation question from the point of view of the company as a whole. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" looks at the motivations of individual decision-makers in large, successful companies. These individuals don't want to disrupt their own business, because that will render some part of their own company obsolete (perhaps their own division!). They also don't want to radically change their customers' businesses, because those customers would also face negative effects from disruption.

A startup, by contrast, has no existing successful divisions and no giant customers to safeguard. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from disruption. Where a large company has no way for individual employees to initiate major changes in corporate strategy, a startup has fewer hops between employees and management. What's more, a startup that rewards an employee's good idea with a stock-grant ties that employee's future finances to the outcome of that idea – while a giant corporation's stock bonuses are only incidentally tied to the ideas of any individual worker.

Big companies are where good ideas go to die. If a big company passes on its employees' cool, disruptive ideas, that's the end of the story for that idea. But even if 100 VCs pass on a startup's cool idea and only one VC funds it, the startup still gets to pursue that idea. In startup land, a good idea gets lots of chances – in a big company, it only gets one.

Given how innately disruptable tech companies are, given how hard it is for big companies to innovate, and given how little innovation we've gotten from Big Tech, how is it that the tech giants haven't been disrupted?

The authors propose a four-step program for the would-be Tech Baron hoping to defend their turf from disruption.

First, gather information about startups that might develop disruptive technologies and steer them away from competing with you, by investing in them or partnering with them.

Second, cut off any would-be competitor's supply of resources they need to develop a disruptive product that challenges your own.

Third, convince the government to pass regulations that big, established companies can comply with but that are business-killing challenges for small competitors.

Finally, buy up any company that resists your steering, succeeds despite your resource war, and escapes the compliance moats of regulation that favors incumbents.

Then: kill those companies.

The authors proceed to show that all four tactics are in play today. Big Tech companies operate their own VC funds, which means they get a look at every promising company in the field, even if they don't want to invest in them. Big Tech companies are also awash in money and their "rival" VCs know it, and so financial VCs and Big Tech collude to fund potential disruptors and then sell them to Big Tech companies as "aqui-hires" that see the disruption neutralized.

On resources, the authors focus on data, and how companies like Facebook have explicit policies of only permitting companies they don't see as potential disruptors to access Facebook data. They reproduce internal Facebook strategy memos that divide potential platform users into "existing competitors, possible future competitors, [or] developers that we have alignment with on business models." These categories allow Facebook to decide which companies are capable of developing disruptive products and which ones aren't. For example, Amazon – which doesn't compete with Facebook – is allowed to access FB data to target shoppers. But Messageme, a startup, was cut off from Facebook as soon as management perceived them as a future rival. Ironically – but unsurprisingly – Facebook spins these policies as pro-privacy, not anti-competitive.

These data policies cast a long shadow. They don't just block existing companies from accessing the data they need to pursue disruptive offerings – they also "send a message" to would-be founders and investors, letting them know that if they try to disrupt a tech giant, they will have their market oxygen cut off before they can draw breath. The only way to build a product that challenges Facebook is as Facebook's partner, under Facebook's direction, with Facebook's veto.

Next, regulation. Starting in 2019, Facebook started publishing full-page newspaper ads calling for regulation. Someone ghost-wrote a Washington Post op-ed under Zuckerberg's byline, arguing the case for more tech regulation. Google, Apple, OpenAI other tech giants have all (selectively) lobbied in favor of many regulations. These rules covered a lot of ground, but they all share a characteristic: complying with them requires huge amounts of money – money that giant tech companies can spare, but potential disruptors lack.

Finally, there's predatory acquisitions. Mark Zuckerberg, working without the benefit of a ghost writer (or in-house counsel to review his statements for actionable intent) has repeatedly confessed to buying companies like Instagram to ensure that they never grow to be competitors. As he told one colleague, "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. The thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”

All the tech giants are acquisition factories. Every successful Google product, almost without exception, is a product they bought from someone else. By contrast, Google's own internal products typically crash and burn, from G+ to Reader to Google Videos. Apple, meanwhile, buys 90 companies per year – Tim Apple brings home a new company for his shareholders more often than you bring home a bag of groceries for your family. All the Big Tech companies' AI offerings are acquisitions, and Apple has bought more AI companies than any of them.

Big Tech claims to be innovating, but it's really just operationalizing. Any company that threatens to disrupt a tech giant is bought, its products stripped of any really innovative features, and the residue is added to existing products as a "sustaining innovation" – a dot-release feature that has all the innovative disruption of rounding the corners on a new mobile phone.

The authors present three case-studies of tech companies using this four-point strategy to forestall disruption in AI, VR and self-driving cars. I'm not excited about any of these three categories, but it's clear that the tech giants are worried about them, and the authors make a devastating case for these disruptions being disrupted by Big Tech.

What do to about it? If we like (some) disruption, and if Big Tech is enshittifying at speed without facing dethroning-by-disruption, how do we get the dynamism and innovation that gave us the best of tech?

The authors make four suggestions.

First, revive the authorities under existing antitrust law to ban executives from Big Tech companies from serving on the boards of startups. More broadly, kill interlocking boards altogether. Remember, these powers already exist in the lawbooks, so accomplishing this goal means a change in enforcement priorities, not a new act of Congress or rulemaking. What's more, interlocking boards between competing companies are illegal per se, meaning there's no expensive, difficult fact-finding needed to demonstrate that two companies are breaking the law by sharing directors.

Next: create a nondiscrimination policy that requires the largest tech companies that share data with some unaffiliated companies to offer data on the same terms to other companies, except when they are direct competitors. They argue that this rule will keep tech giants from choking off disruptive technologies that make them obsolete (rather than competing with them).

On the subject of regulation and compliance moats, they have less concrete advice. They counsel lawmakers to greet tech giants' demands to be regulated with suspicion, to proceed with caution when they do regulate, and to shape regulation so that it doesn't limit market entry, by keeping in mind the disproportionate burdens regulations put on established giants and small new companies. This is all good advice, but it's more a set of principles than any kind of specific practice, test or procedure.

Finally, they call for increased scrutiny of mergers, including mergers between very large companies and small startups. They argue that existing law (Sec 2 of the Sherman Act and Sec 7 of the Clayton Act) both empower enforcers to block these acquisitions. They admit that the case-law on this is poor, but that just means that enforcers need to start making new case-law.

I like all of these suggestions! We're certainly enjoying a more activist set of regulators, who are more interested in Big Tech, than we've seen in generations.

But they are grossly under-resourced even without giving them additional duties. As Matt Stoller points out, "the DOJ's Antitrust Division has fewer people enforcing anti-monopoly laws in a $24 trillion economy than the Smithsonian Museum has security guards."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/congressional-republicans-to-defund

What's more, Republicans are trying to slash their budgets even further. The American conservative movement has finally located a police force they're eager to defund: the corporate police who defend us all from predatory monopolies.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

#pluralistic #coopting disruption #law and political economy #law #economics #competition #big tech #tech #innovation #acquihires #predatory acquisitions #mergers and acquisitions #disruption #schumpeter #the curse of bigness #clay christensen #josef schumpeter #christensen #enshittiification #business #regulation #scholarship

[headspace-hotel]

One of the folks in the group i'm facilitating/leading was like "I'm so glad the younger generation is starting to get into this stuff!" (meaning conservation and native plant gardening) and it really hit me how most people working in their local communities for environmentalist causes are older Gen Xers and up

There's a serious problem with Gen Z not knowing how to seek resources and groups and organizations that don't exist online, and that's most of them because they're being run by people with minimal internet literacy

On the other side, there's a problem with the people who are most knowledgeable and deeply involved not knowing how to reach numbers of people using the internet

But it is the first thing that worries me more

[mysterycitrus]

actually why do you think that modern batman comics writers are so bad at compelling 6-8 issue comic arcs? (obvi TT's current nw run is just robbed of any conflict that isn't straight up good guy vs bad guy and is didactic as hell to boot but i haven't really felt grabbed by anything bat-related dc has put out in the last three years). is it an unwillingness to really shake anything up?

a general lack of engaging storytelling is an endemic problem at dc that i think can be partially attributed to a bunch of bad editorial decisions — green arrow for example was only greenlit as a series because williamson was determined to write it amid all his other projects. the pacing and character work suffers as a result. it’s suuuper slow to try and read

taylor is an interesting example though because he’s a terminally online liberal gen xer who seems to write comics like he wants panels to go viral on twitter. there’s no stakes because he’s too centrist to actually put an opinion on paper that might trigger some internal reflection. he tried to call out chuck dixons violent homophobia but thanked him in the same tweet. it’s bad. he should not be in charge of a character like nightwing who’s historically had issues with authority and like….. is defined by his passion. there is a total absence of nuanced interpersonal conflict because like fanon, everyone in comics seems too afraid to have characters be actually wrong about something.

when we read sincerely interesting comics — especially main events like knightfall or murder + fugitive or no man’s land or even utrh — those comics remain interesting because the writers had a perspective and a story to tell. some of those perspectives are bad, mind, but at least there was something there. now, all these writers are online and getting both blind adoration and violent hatred which i think makes them too self conscious to legitimately try. i don’t think it’s a coincidence that the most engaging writing jason todd’s had since 2005 was written by gretchen felker martin in the furry comic, aka someone who has actual things to say.

#dick grayson #nightwing #batman #the ask and the answer #dc comics

[drconstellation]

Once and Future Royalty

Just, stay with me on this one. I know its going to look crazy at the start, but trust me, I know where I'm going.

It all started with the 537AD scene in Wessex in the opening montage of "Hard Times," S1E3. Yeah, the one where Aziraphale is supposed to be a knight of the Round Table and Crowley is role-playing the Black Knight, and they are both so super-squeaky shiny clean - not a speck of dirt or mud on them. wtf! It looks out of place, unrealistic, and was bugging the crap out of me, like a stone in your shoe. It just didn't fit. I mean, why put a myth, a legend, into that sequence? Oh, OK, yeah, the preceding stories from the Bible, like the Garden of Eden and the Flood, aren't "myths" as well, you say? Hmm. In the context of the Good Omens AU, being a biblical based story, they belong there far more than the legend of King Arthur.

King Arthur, who supposedly united Britain under his rule during the late 5th century and early 6th century, was shown to have the divine right to rule by wielding the mighty sword Excalibur. Some stories tell of Arthur pulling Excalibur from a stone. Some tell of him receiving Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake. Either way, it was bestowed upon him by divine grace. Despite his triumph in battle, he left no heirs, as his queen, the fair Guinevere, was barren. She had a long-running love affair with the greatest knight of the court, Sir Lancelot, but despite this being an open secret in court Arthur would not put her aside. The knights of the Round Table in the court of Camelot were near-paragons of Christian virtue, and there are many tales of their search for the Holy Grail, the cup from the Last Supper of Jesus Christ.

In the end, mortally wounded in battle, Arthur was taken away for healing, and never seen again. It was said he would return when Britain was at it most direst hour to save the day once more. A "messianic" return.

The Once and Future King.

Now, I'm no Arthurian novice; I drank up all of T. H. White as a teenager, read the Dark is Rising multiple times, Marion Zimmer Bradley's interpretation and what ever else I could lay my hands on for a good couple of decades. And there is LOTS of King Arthur stuff around. You are not left wanting for anything new to read or consume. And I'll bet there are a fair few of you also out there who know a quite bit about the legend as well. Oh, and I can't tell you how many times I have watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I still walk around quoting it day-to-day, like the good little Gen-Xer I am, having grown up on that stuff. So I really should have listened to my intuition when bits of Monty Python kept popping up in my brain in response to other parts of GO I was thinking about. (Staaay, I said, stay with me here....)

I kept chewing away furiously on the Wessex problem, growling in feral frustration at it, but also kept reading and sorting out some other ideas and metas at the same time. Eventually I found the key in a tiny little post, about a small detail in the 1941 Blitz episode S2E4, of all places. I wanted to slap myself with how much was staring me in the face so obviously once the door opened. And the damn beauty of it is, that I already written about some it, out of context, without knowing the why.

OK. Where to start this journey...hmmm, back to Monty Python, because, guess what - the Wessex scene is actually riffing off one the more famous skits out the the Holy Grail. The scene is a masterpiece of political satire, from start to finish, but the relevant part here is this sequence:

In case you missed the salient points: Arthur claims he is king by divine providence, because he was given Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake. Dennis the peasant protests this waterlogged method of determination, mentioning ponds, watery tarts and a moistened... well, I hope you get the idea about where this is going.

Meanwhile, in 537AD, Wessex, as the mist swirls around them:

"It is a bit damp," complains a shiny silver Aziraphale.

Yes, Excalibur would be a bit damp after it emerged from the Lake. (vidavalor! Get your mind out of the gutter! I'm trying to have a serious discussion here! Please! And I wasn't even going to go anywhere near what the sword in the stone is really meant to be referring to...it's not even relevant to the discussion at hand, I swear! Well, there is going to be sexual relations mentioned but - oh, never mind...)

Right. Where were we. Lets leave those super-clean elite pretendy knights to swim off through the swirling mist back to their dry homes to write and file reports to head office, along with Patsy and the hired Igors, and Dennis can keep playing in his lovely muddy filth after he finishes protesting being repressed by the divinely-deluded Arthur. I've got a bit more to say about what Aziraphale and Crowley might represent here later but you need some more context first, so lets move on. I just needed to show you the first bit so you can see the Arthurian theme stretches across both S1 and S2, and will likely appear in S3 as well. More about that towards the end.

Ah, before I forget...another ref from the Holy Grail we need to cover:

This GIF, unfortunately, doesn't have the full exchange between the peasants, which is this:

P1: "Who's that then?" P2: "I don't know. Must be a king." P1: "How can you tell?" P2: "Because he doesn't have any shit on him."

Ah. Er. OH!

Have you made the connection?

Who have I been emphasizing as being unusually clean in their Arthurian setting? That's right, Aziraphale and Crowley.

What's this implying? That they are royalty. Celestial royalty. Maybe not kings, but how about princes? You know how we've been discussing whether Crowley was a once at least an Archangel, and there is even a hint that he was a fallen prince of Heaven given during the replay of Gabriel's trial? (Not the prince, but a prince - a seraphim) And that Aziraphale may have once been Raphael, and may be again in the future? Once and future royalty. To me it adds weight to the past discussion, and helps to explain the assumed authority expressed in these two scenes here: On the left, Aziraphale takes control inside the book shop as the angels and demons argue who is going to punish Gabriel and Beelzebub (finally found it after several months!) and on the right, Crowley is shouting at the assembling demons in the street that they are "out of order."

Onward, Patsy. (I hope you're still with me.)

1941, the Blitz part 2, minisode.

We've found Excalibur! On to Camelot!

[Edit note: I've added a few GIFs and screen shots into the sequence of parallels above because I was thinking over a few things since I posted and felt this actually sat better. To try and explain, as they don't exactly match as I would like, in the Holy Grail movie, King Arthur and the knights he has gathered rock up at the foot of Camelot and gaze up in awe at it. "Camelot!" Arthur declares to the party. "Camelot!" Galahad echoes in excitement. And a third "Camelot!" comes from Lancelot. What do we get in GO? Aziraphale leaps out of the Bentley (Crowley's black horse) and declares "The theater! Sophocles! Shakespeare!" I swear, if you put the two side by side, they would match. It's not just a reminder of how much time Aziraphale has seen pass by, or that we are seeing a tragedy play out. But damn it, I could so just see Aziraphale attending a Sophocles performance in Athens back in the day...]

Camelot was King Arthur's castle and home of his court. In S2 of GO the Windmill Theater is established as our court of Camelot where our 1941 Blitz-era Arthurian drama is to play out, involving Furfur and the zombies.

Yes, poor old Furfur. Two's company, three's a crowd, as they say. Now we know we're in Camelot, we need to be reminded of the central tragedy of the Arthurian story, that ultimately led to the golden kingdom's fall. Lady Guinevere, Arthur's queen, famously loved Sir Lancelot, and the two were passionate lovers. It was essentially a love-triangle at the top, with Arthur being jilted, but he wouldn't/couldn't discard his queen. Where do we see this playing out in 1941?

Furfur, pleased with himself for catching an angel and a demon in the act of consorting together (with the help of the zombies,) barges into the backstage dressing room, and confronts the lovers with their crime. But who is playing who in the Arthurian love triangle? I would say Furfur is clearly caught in the role of Arthur here. Consider the following exchange:

FURFUR: Hmm, well, well, well… What have we here? AZIRAPHALE: Sorry, have we met? FURFUR: Oh, no, you never had the pleasure, but… we have, haven't we? CROWLEY: Have we? FURFUR: What do you mean "have we?" You know we have. We were in the same legion. Just before the Fall. Doing dubious battle on the plains of Heaven. Remember? CROWLEY: I remember going into battle, I don't remember being there with you. Sorry. FURFUR: I was right next to you. We did loads together. You use to jump on me back, little monkey in the waistcoat. Anyway, whether you do or whether you don't, it doesn't matter. I'm here to inform you, as a representative of the Higher Powers of Hell, that you, Crowley, are in breach of the Infernal Code. Consulting and collaborating with an angel, Fell the Marvelous, aka… [opens book] Azirapalala. Azirapapap. Aziphapalala. AZIRAPHALE: [annoyed] Aziraphale

Furfur claims a past intimate relationship with Crowley, which Crowley spurns offhandedly. Crowley is playing Guinevere here, jilting Furfur/Arthur, which leaves the demon-smiting Aziraphale standing in for the handsome hero Lancelot (with his French connections, no less), and doesn't he make us weak at the knees when he drops his voice an octave in dominating disgust. (Is it suddenly getting hot in here...? Phew!)

Interestingly, looking back in S1 at 537AD Wessex, though, I would say that Crowley was Lancelot as the Black Knight, a role that Lancelot sometimes played in the legends, and Aziraphale would then be the fair maiden Guinevere. It certainly plays into Crowley's long term role of playing the knight who comes to the rescue of Aziraphale's princess in distress. Excalibur was no where in sight, perhaps still beneath the waters of the lake. Nor Arthur. Perhaps it was still too early in the story then...

I had originally suggested in my very first post that Furfur was given a stag as his demon avatar because he was wearing horns for being cuckolded by Crowley. But I wasn't quite thinking about it in context with the Arthurian legend! The stag is also often associated with royalty, plus while wandering around the medieval bestiary website that someone linked to, it interestingly notes that the enemy of the snake is the stag and the stork (Shax's avatar.) Ah ha!

So how can we extrapolate this knowledge into a possible appearance of the Arthurian theme in S3?

Will we see the love triangle of Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot come back into play and cause more chaos? I'm wondering if it might have something to do with the Fall.

Or will our lovers bring down a divinely-appointed ruler via their committed behind-the-back defiance of expected propriety?

Will Excalibur appear from beneath the waters, perhaps in another form, to declare a new king?

Could it even be a combination Jesus/Arthur, King of the World, returned? And they turn out to be a very naughty boy, disappearing into the night clubs of Times Square, New York, and that's how they lose him? (Social media viral sensation, anyone?)

I wouldn't be half-surprised if Greasy Johnson's name turns out to be Arthur, actually.

And no, I haven't forgotten that Adam's dad was named Arthur as well.

Bring on S3!

**Bonus**

If you've made it this far and you're thinking:

Let me leave you with this last connection.

In the back stage change room, remember Furfur delivers these lines:

FURFUR: What do you mean "have we?" You know we have. We were in the same legion. Just before the Fall. Doing dubious battle on the plains of Heaven. Remember?

On the first level, he is referring the Great War in the Good Omens AU.

On the second level, Furfur is paraphrasing Milton's Paradise Lost.

On a third level, I can (and will in a future meta) connect this back to the training initiative paintball fight at Tadfield Manor in S1.

And even deeper on a fourth level, if you do know the Holy Grail movie well, you'll remember there is an odd little subplot in it, that infers that the whole King Arthur and his knights thing is merely a full-on violent cosplay that is murderously rampaging across the countryside in the present day with the police in hot pursuit. It's a strange juxtaposition between reality and dream, and you aren't quite sure what it is real or not. The ending is bizarrely and abruptly surreal as the two story lines collide in the heat of battle, as the police turn up and arrest the combatants. A bit like this:

#good omens #good omens 2 #good omens meta #good omens analysis #aziraphale #crowley #king arthur #king of the who? #the return of king arthur #excalibur #the lady of the lake #watery tarts #monty python #monty python and the holy grail #run away #camelot #arthurian legend #ladies of camelot #guinevere #lancelot #the once and future king #once and future royalty #good omens 1941 #furfur #shax #dubious battle on the plains of heaven #tadfield manor

[trashbins-stuff]

Hello. I have seen that you have been tagged by @neobixiscool on one of their posts. I am planning to make a rant post on them. If you can provide some background info and your side of the story, that would be great. If you feel uncomfortable discussing this, that's ok. Have a good day/evening.

rub hands together like flies. my time has come/silly 😋😋

and thank you for coming to me :3 i appreciate it/gen also i get to go all cabby on this hehe

oh and, im not really hurt-hurted by them, i feel like mocha (mochablogger), liam (moonmxple) and mac (blairdrawzstuff) are most affected. They did have a book with my character in it but in a different universe or something (without my consent nor credit btw). Anyway under the cut is my observant. Honestly i think i might have jsut make the rant post for you lmao hrgbnhe 😭😭

the background/before:

mocha was working on a little story and xe said we could be in it! so obviously me and my friends signed up for the fun, not really expecting anything, the story was called "The Traumatized Cup", thats when we first meet him.

In one of the chapter mocha had introduced rubix, at first i didnt really think much about him, i was just aware of his presence, i do notice him and mocha started to become friends and i thought that was great :)

something that you should probably contact cuppy for more info:

so rubix (or according to rubix, "jasp" was roleplaying) and mocha were friends on facebook, and they roleplayed there i think, this i just know but apparently he said crap about liam (mocha's platonic partner and my best friend). Mocha is very sensitive and even in roleplay xe's still uncomfortable with what rubix said

"bezel's" divorce headcanon (and possible influence on further problems):

i heard people talked about it but never knew where it came from, but thne i found out and,,

tdlr; 1st one is about mocha and rubix, i dont know if mocha consent to it. 2nd one is uh a bit weird i i guess like he could have ask facemoji to make another one ;-;. 3rd ah yes the divorce that i had heard about!/vneg

rubix said bezel forced him into making the 1st one, even if thats true, rubix said the divorce was bezel's headcanon but hes the one that decided to post the 3rd one ("okay i asked facemoji again..")

seem kinda sus not gonna lie..but what do i nose right :-)

bezel probably influence more but even after all these months im still not sure if he really did do those things, idk lul, it is pretty weird that bezel's blog was a sideblog though (liam told me)

heres a bunch of words with link attach, those r my opinions lmao:

these u can just click to read so i hope thats okay

on wattpad he have a book in which he painted mocha, hazel and blair as manipulative (admittedly his writing was good, he could have used it for something different though)

he also uses some of our characters (such as mocha cuppy, hazel, blair, harp, blueberry, winter, bin (mine btw), seedling, galaxy journal,...etc) he did the delete that book tho, anyway heres more screenshot proof (credit @moonmxple )

mocha asked liam and neobix said its cringe

i remember this one also

the one where he tried to ban pet name and online dating (in 2023) (check the comment and other reblogs also theres alot, its practically a goldmine/silly)

and can i say he barely knows our friend group? like sure he knows mocha but hes trying to fit into our group (very poorly)

please read what cass wrote in the comment (thanks cass for speaking out about it ily)

the ask i sent him

NOT to get all bitchy here but mocha blocked you therefore you literally dont appear anywhere on xer dash, you're out of xer life and xe had no reason to pester you, not everything has to be about mocha. You guy's relationship (or supposedly lack there of) had change but honestly? thats okay they dont have to like the same people that they liked yesterday. You might think you know that's them but it wasnt, mocha in real life is kinder and better than the version inside of your head and they're happier now and its so sad that you cant see (because you're blocked)

and again, not everything has to be about YOU

he also made it all about HIM like excuse me ???? can i not complain for little bit without you coming in and nag about your problem ??? if you're suffering go talk to someone dont talk to online strangers ??? :)))???????

bro cant even read a long paragraph post like go back to elementary school lmao, also reporting ppl just because they use their right to not forgive you is such a sore loser move, it make you sound like petty six year old (also max be spitting facts tho)

bro brought out HIS right (reporting mocha, which he actually cant do if he doesnt have a valid reason) while ignore MOCHA's right (not forgiving him, which isnt a valid reason for him to report xem). The definition of petty is literally complain way too much about unimportant things that could have and should have ended already

"you dont have to relate to everything you see on the internet, somethings are simply not about you" :)

did you know that to report someone you have to click alot of buttons??

common salad W <3333

oh yeah, this doesnt have links but jasp/neobix is being so casual abt bezel's death but also uses it as a way to make people feel bad for getting upset with what he did

Sorry for playing the dickhead role, but you wouldn't be laughing if you knew how we felt about every single one of you. (why it sound serious all the sudden lol)

why i still doubt (uh and heads up, galaxy brush, kodu, cuppy,..others who think @/rubixisanidi0t was saying the truth, im not saying he isnt but you cant blame me for not trusting can you? please skip this part if you're sensitive):

naw so if this was suppose to be jasp then whats jasp motive lmao :/..he dont gain anything from this + who tell people their secret plan publicly?? + how did jasp know about rubixs hallucination?? rubix please dont tell such personal things to jsut your friends and please just talk to an adult in real life. And jasp, dont let these kind of things on the internet its not safe/srs

this is just straight up weird and also why did neobix/jasp said "old friend" like hes rubix?? when he supposedly told rubix and i quote "yeah.. Soo.... This person named @/mochablogger seemed like some cool person, and when I tried to talk with them... Nothing happened, so when I figured they didn't care... It all happened at once." neobix/jasp and mocha werent even friend to begin with why was he SO obssess over getting mochas forgiveness when they supposedly barely interact much??

aint it a bit weird how this is supposedly jasp/neobix but why would they make this video??? it???doesnt make any sense?? and like were rubix and jasp still good friend??? why wood bezel make jasp of all people do it??? unless yk

HOL UP, WAIT A MINUTE..if rose jelly dated rubix but rubix tunred out to be jasp then..WHO IS ROSE JELLY ACTUALLY DATING??????

if @/neobixiscool is suppose to be jasp then how did he get a screenshot for a show rubix was making???

i translated it and head up. it has death threat in it

you know, if someone stole my account and ruin my reputation i wouldnt be following them and be mutuals with them :)

i appreciate him saying hell save us but like..why would @/neobixiscool linked the real rubix's yt and discord knowing full well that the real rubix was there and could told joiners the truth??? that seem kinda dumb ngl also on the channel you can find a video called "waitng for forgiveness" which @/neobixiscool had talked about. and lets do a bit of timing here, if rubix really was telling the truth and havent been on social media since his alst post on @/rubixcuix (last posted in august) and the divorce arc and the roleplay thing and EVERYTHING had started in september, and if the yt belonged to rubix, then he shouldnt have known that mocha didnt forgive him and make that video????? bc he wasnt suppose to be there since august??? bc if anything he shouldnt be waiting for forgiveness bc if jasp really did steal his tumblr account then its not his fault?? like i find it absoltuely HILARIOUS that the evidence agaisnt what rubix said was on both the account @/neobixiscool AND @/rubixisanidi0t's PINNED post?? and it boggles my mind how no one talks abt this???/lh/nm i mean its quite obvious maybe im jsut really observant though idk

if you got your account stolen and jasp supposedly brought back a wattpad book, i dont think you should be continuing it?? and didnt you said your reported him on wattpad?? on the same account where the book is?? why are you acting like "yes i did promise them this and im fully aware of what happen even though i supposedly havent been here since august and i will continue this book" has it hit you?

uh yeah so these are just my silly little takes, but hey! what do i nose? :-)

#drama #my take on the drama is very fun hehe :) i had fun writing this #anyway thanks for reading my thoughts lul hope you have a great dayyyy <3

[ofmermaidstories]

Will it ever end tho, or will Hori just keep pulling more story out of his butt to prolong the ending

It will!!! When is up in the air, lmao. Depending on his health and the breaks he takes, I could see My Hero ending this year tbh. But also—Horikoshi has seemed ready to finish the series for a while, now. 🥺 If anything I think the thing we gotta worry about, as a fandom, is him rushing things. 💀 Which is why I’m so leery when people trot out the “emotional resolution” thing as a reason for the series going on longer—I do consider it one of his weaknesses with his storytelling, outside of the fights, so I think he could very easily sacrifice that kind of satisfaction to get to the “and they were ALL heroes, the end :)” ending.

I sound like I’m hating on him, I’m not. 😭 I love what he’s done and ultimately how he’s telling his story—and I will be a wreck when the manga comes to a close LMAO. When we get that “we’re the greatest heroes :)” ending. 🥹 But he’s also the artist of like, one of the few remaining long-haul series left in Jump. 🥺 Like, god, what else is there? Kishimoto, maybe, with Boruto? Is that a thing? I’m not a Naruto reader so I’ve never paid attention. 😩🙏🏽 Oda with One Piece? Maybe technically Togashi’s Hunter x Hunter? And then Horikoshi, with My Hero Academia. 🥺 Plus there’s a generational difference—all those other artists are what, Gen Xers and older? Whereas Hori is a Milennial, and one of the last so far to have as many chapters. The only other one I can think of hitting the same stride was like, Furudate with Haikyu!! That long-form storytelling takes its toll!! Mangaka break their BACKS with their series, the weekly demand with shonen is insane, and we lose so many artists to health problems they shouldn’t be having!!!!! 🥺 in a dream world Hori would take like, idk, a six month break and then come back and wrap up My Hero however he wanted to, however long that takes, but I think the relentless demands of being such a heavy hitter for Jump will mean he will be keen to finish it as soon as possible. Whether he will is up for debate, but if the series wrapped up by the end of the year or sooner, I would not be surprised nor resent it. 🥺

#ofmermaidstories-asks #my hero the landmark that u are 🙏🏽

[ginger-snap-talkin-nonsense]

Is there anything more to read into the many TikTok being banned scares beyond them all being just massive fucking nothingburgers of ‘news stories’? Because I’ve now been hearing for years about how it’s going to be banned any day now, and it’s still. . . .the exact opposite of that. I don’t even know how such a ban would even be enforceable if one ever actually WAS passed through.

There is nothing that will ever be done because doing something to TikTok would set a precedent for every other social media app as they’re all very similar and none of the people who run those will let that happen.

TikTok is the easy one that people jump at because it’s owned and operated by a Chinese corporation and not an American one, so conservatives can spin any social media problem that’s happening internet wide as a psyop from “those people” to easily duped gen xers and boomers who don’t know what TikTok is but know their kids use it.

[beatlesabortion]

I feel like dean winchester is the type of guy who says stuff likw 'i drive even better drunk' or 'im a great drunk driver'

no literally hes exactly that guy. I'm not even trying to be deancrit or whatever that's just so obviously the kind of guy he is. It's like quintessential gen Xer with a drinking problem. He'd make fun of you for being worried, meanwhile he's practically swerving off the road.

#spn

[othersystems]

hey, i love that you've noticed the post-apocalypse writing trend too. agree that art/writing on this subject is grossly, well, trendy, and often self-serving. that said, would you mind linking me to some of the people you were referring to (-- or if you were into it at one point, someone you actually think is good)? i am also!! working on a post-apocalypse novel lol (and have been for the last 5 years) and would hugely appreciate seeing more work in this realm, good and bad. thank you sm!

omg congrats on the novel!!! i feel like post apocolyptic is such a broad category i would not be stressed about it being too similar to anything.

a lot of the chapbooks i was thinking of are by artists on small presses and i would feel bad calling any out by name. but i am happy to give a list of recent fiction dealing with climate anxiety/apocolypse-lite fiction that seem connected to eachother, off the top of my head. i guess my main problem is the feeling in many of these that climate change is an almost singular event happening right now that we must poetically make peace with, instead of a process stemming from specific ways our world currently functions, that it does not have to. in general i see this kind of writing/perspective a lot in white gen xers lol.. anyway there was some stuff i liked and stuff and i did not like in all of these, except the last book which i hated because i thought it was just badly written.:

-1004 by ben lerner

-weather by jenny offill

-pure colour by sheila heti

-autumn by ali smith (and all of the seasons books by her)

-no one is talking about this by patricia lockwood

-the rabbit hutch by tess gunty (*absolutely hated this book, the other books at least had some elements i enjoyed)

[chezzabellesworld]

Boomers

Gen x

Millenails

Difference in their coming of age

So if you see my place at the top I have started with boomers, I find all the generational gaps fascinating and how we can like show different ways of being with different generations and what their Generations before them had taught them so we start with the boomers, and what they were raised like so they would have been raised by the Silent generation I believe or the greatest generation I forget between the two so there were two ways of being at this time.

my mum's are Boomer and she didn't rebellions her parents at all, whereas my uncle might of Here problems with alcohol and drugs so did my mom's sister so then in this generation you get the first generation of the real known groupies and the under age of it all, I don't know whether it is whether these Generations grow up faster or it just becomes more a topic that we look back on and think how the hell did that happen? I just think it's really interesting thing to look into and if you look at the covers of these girls and these magazines in the first roll of photos, you will see how young they look on the cover of star magazine.

They get a rap for getting all the money all the houses all the drugs and on the hardship which is technically true I mean G's I'm in a millennial and I'll be running into the rest of my life I've been in my place for us since 2016 so yeah as long as my dog has been alive. But some of these teenagers really rebelled who had sable star Laura Laurie Maddox ,bebe buelle ,and Pamela des bares.

When it came to the abuse in the industry, I think the Boom is took it actually the hardest as in it was more rampant than the further you go back even actually but of all these three Generations here I am talking about you see that they had to do with the the Harvey weinsteins, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, of their times so they took it hard, but they were told to have a stiff upper lip ,and get on with it ,I think that's y early gen xers late boomers and even late gen x ers, have this complex that they should not feel a certain way about abuse and abuse in power .

Gen x were raised by early boomers and older greatest generation. Their generation rebelled more ,but in more aggressive way rather that Saturn in Pisces it was coming into aries /taurus punk movement then went , went to the grunge movement who are raised by the punk movement which makes sense unlike the boomers who were all happy dippy hippie Saturn in Pisces or Aquarius which you can really see of like the controversiality and the delusion representing acid and the weed whereas now Saturn is going into Aries and Taurus to signs that have horns are just gonna crash a grense things and be like hey I'm going to take this crap no more, see the gen x's I like millennials that don't talk about their pain I saw this the other day and that is the best way to put it don't fuck with a gen x so because you won't win, and then you have the subgroup but the xenialls!!! And that would be people born between 79 to say maybe 83 but Punk affected the gen x's I mean their generation compared to Milani holes and boomers are outstandingly small they even ended up in rehab, dead in prison or taking over the fucking world they are some strong motherfuckers.

So now the drugs of this time I forgot to talk about the late 70s early 80s which they were being raised by people who are on cocaine or crack or maybe even heroin.....

This generation raised the Kurt cobains to the Courtney loves the Spice Girls, TLC, NWA Rage Against the Machine, REM no doubt,Pamela Anderson, and so many more people .....

Then here come my fucked up generation millennials had at the hardest out of not having the best time out of these three groups when it came to the internet Revolution groups, because we were around when mobiles came out and we didn't really get along time as gen x is and boomerside we saw that little bit of greatness where you had those nights in the park getting drunk cause your friends before you are old enough to do so and also having the internet not affect it not checking your phone every 10 seconds to go and tick tock, I mean the music Now is just a disgrace programs now are just to me but maybe that's just getting old maybe that's just me so let's talk about millennials a bit or period is 1981 to 1994 yeah that's right!!we looked up to the gen x generation we were raised on spice Girls, a lot of us are just very tired ,I almost feel like we don't fit any the other group s including gen z because we gad the most hate on our bodies ,which sucks because we then get bullied online to by gen z and alpha !!! Very very sad .....we had paris hilton and Nicole richie , trisha pastas, holly Madison (just)I think ? Amy winehouse , Avril Levine, Britney, xtina , rihanna ,beyonce , ..so was some good uns taylor swift ,kim k ,cardi and nicki .justin beiber, and Timberlake.

#gen xers #baby boomers #millenials #fypage #Generations #gen z #gen alpha #age

[poetry-protest-pornography]

Dear Random Gen X-er in my comments,

The whole "millennials and gen z are crybabies, choke on a tidepod" thing is super obnoxious. But also, uh... You're generation are the parents of a good number of those people.

We weren't giving ourselves participation awards (why are Xers and Boomers so obsessed with participation awards?). We weren't telling ourselves that we would be the generation to fix all the world's problems, only to make it to adulthood and immediately go through multiple recessions (and a global pandemic(, and discover that you all didn't want to make room for us in positions that would let us make any change.

I don't understand why we're doing this generational blame game, and generally find it ridiculous because like. We're all in this shitty capitalist, pollution ridden, slide towards fascism together at this point. But also, you can't blame your kids for the way you taught them to be and the circumstances you left them to.

*disclaimer: some of my favorite people are gen X-ers, I have nothing against Gen X as a whole, because that is painfully absurd; my problem is with this mentality that is so pervasive and sometimes my resentment/guilt complex over not solving climate change, racism, sexism, and homophobia like I was told we would in school kicks in and I get Mad.*

#generational fights ig? #I'm not tagging this because i don't actually want to fight about this. it's stupid. #but i needed to rant and i thought some of you might be entertained by yell-y Rachael

[pedropascalito]

I felt a lot of the same sadness that you did reading the interview, but I really don’t think you’re part of the problem in the fandom. I see how hard you work to not put P into the box and stay away from discussing his private life. That’s an admirable thing in my opinion and not something that contributes to the more negative aspects of fandom. I’m not anti gossip blog but I do think that there are fans who can’t separate who they want P to be from the man himself. Obviously none of us know who P is 100% but I think that some people like to act like they do. At the end of the day though, even the worst fan is a product of the industry and the limits that it places on actors. That’s the core of the issue imo.

I love how you said, "The worst fan is a product of the industry."

We've let fandom run amok with little regard for how it affects the people put on a pedestal they can't possibly maintain, nor should they.

I also admired Pedro saying he wanted to be well-known in the industry so he could get better roles with top notch directors. Or have the chance to direct himself. I love this for him. Not for being pestered by fans who never learned what boundaries are.

However, I am old, a Gen-Xer, and grew up without social media. I learned boundaries because I had to; we didn't really have a choice. I don't know what it's like to grow up thinking I have the right to have access to every person on the planet on a whim and desire.

#ask #pedro pascal #fandom

[mrchalamet-mrstyles]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/timothee-chalamet-kylie-jenner-club-chalamet-stan-culture-controversy-1234820673/amp/

Club Chalamet mentioned in rolling stone magazine.........

She keeps having the day she deserves 🤣

A fan account run by a Gen-Xer, coupled with a reference to a beloved fast-casual Italian eatery chain, was more than enough to make Club Chalamet go viral. The drama has obviously reignited a long-running internet discussion on parasocial relationships, a term used to describe fans investing immense emotional time and energy into a famous or fictional person without the other person even knowing they exist. But what most people have failed to address is the real problem in the room: stan culture’s intimate relationship with misogyny, and how it bleeds into real life.

...

Fandom starts to get messy, however, when misogyny plays into it, especially when it comes to celebrity relationships. Stans are upset with Chalamet for dating Jenner, but their vitriol is aimed firmly at her. They think he’s a serious actor, and Jenner is a vapid Instagram model. “Kylie doesnt have anything to offer Timothee on an intellectual level,” reads a now-deleted tweet from a stan account,” while a Club Chalamet post wrote, “[Kylie] attracts a certain crowd that has very low IQs.” How could these two equally famous 27 and 26-year-olds, respectively, possibly enjoy each other’s company? She must be the problem. Some fans, Club Chalamet included, have even referred to the social media star as “Slurpee,” because they believe that like the drink, she is “artificial” and “unhealthy” for their favorite actor.

...

There’s a real-life consequence to this narrative. Once it becomes acceptable for misogyny to be weaponized against celebrities’ new partners, it’s easier for those views to become mainstream in the court of public opinion. Most infamously, that is exactly what happened last year, when fans of the actor Johnny Depp started attacking his ex Amber Heard during her defamation trial against him, which she described as “humiliating and horrible.” Ironically, fellow Chalamet stans have even been misogynistic toward the woman who runs Club Chalamet, attacking her for her age rather than critiquing her seemingly unhealthy obsession with the actor’s personal life.

#timothée chalamet #club chalamet #fandom misogyny #its always the women #who are the problem #iykyk