value classes

so i haven’t seen anything on tumblr about this yet but since it’s kind of a big deal, uh. concordia university in montreal received a bomb threat today from a group called c4 – the conseil des citoyens conservateurs du canada, or, roughly translated, the council of conservative citizens of canada (to be completely honest that’s using an internet translator so please correct me if i’m off). according to the message from the president of concordia, the threat was directed at muslim students.

so a) everyone in downtown montreal please stay safe as the downtown campus is huge, and b) what the fuck.

everyone who thinks canada is some kind of haven against racism or hate crimes or major threats can sit the fuck down. this is just weeks after a white supremacist killed several muslims in quebec city. this is some scary fucked up disgustingly racist shit.


Jus sayin, maybe worshipping rich people for giving back money they structurally stole or passed between each other is bullshit.

“The laws of capitalism, blind and invisible to the majority, act upon the individual without his thinking about it. He sees only the vastness of a seemingly infinite horizon before him. That is how it is painted by capitalist propagandists, who purport to draw a lesson from the example of Rockefeller — whether or not it is true — about the possibilities of success. The amount of poverty and suffering required for the emergence of a Rockefeller, and the amount of depravity that the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude entails, are left out of the picture.”

Ernesto Che Guevara 

“A doctrine and religion of ‘love’ can be of the highest value within classes of people, even from the point of view of the rulers, for it suppresses feelings of rivalry, ressentiment, and envy in the underprivileged. It even deifies a life of slavery, subjection, poverty, sickness, and inferiority under the ideal of humility and obedience. This explains why the ruling classes, races, or individuals have at all times upheld the cult of selflessness and the gospel of the lowly.”

—F. Nietzsche, The Will to Power, §373 (edited excerpt).

The world is kinder to pretty women and that’s always going to sting.


We won’t be silent. We will speak out. And we will persist.

Types of Literary Criticism


  • Also known as ‘practical criticism’.
  • This theory was dominant in the US and UK between the 30s and 70s. 
  • A formalist, decontextualised approach to literature where the text is examined independently of other influences.
  • Explores the essential elements of language, imagery, symbolism, figures of speech, ambiguity, irony, paradox.
  • Pretty huge span of approaches - for example, within Shakespearean new criticism you had A.C. Bradley’s character-based critique, Harley Granville-Barker’s study of stagecraft, G. Wilson Knight’s exploration of image and theme, and L.C. Knights’ suggestion that Bradley is a douche and Shakespeare was a poet, not a dramatist. (Yeah, fuck you, Knights.)


  • Funnily enough, this approach believes that historical context influences interpretation.
  • Stuff like: religion, political idealism of the time, cultural shifts, social attitudes, war, colonialism (although that’s a whole other bag of cats, see below), pop culture references and in-jokes, and anything that might have influenced the text during the era in which it was written.
  • Within historicist criticism there should be a distinction between text and context; history is the background that the text passively reflects.
  • Buuuut often this approach reveals more about the critic’s political/social/personal values than the period they are studying. Natch. 


  • Popular at the beginning of the 1900s - literature and art are timeless, revealing a universal truth about humanity.
  • Like, writers are totally free agents whose intentions shape the meaning of their writing, man. 
  • Like, human consciousness shapes language, culture and society, NOT the other way around.


  • A criticial theory systemised in the 20s, based on the materialist philosophy of Karl Marx (1818-83) and Friedrich Engels (1820-95) whereby the material circumstances of life are determining factors in the individual’s experience.
  • So, like, the economic organisation of society shapes culture, politics, philosophy, religion, education, law and art.
  • So, like, fuck liberal humanism; people are shaped by their environment, NOT the other way around. Authors and their works are basically products of society. 
  • These guys believe that art reflects changing economic conditions and class values. There’s a little cross-over with historicist criticism in the approach that literature should be interpreted within the context of the period and its political inflections - often with a focus on the lower classes.
  • Get yourself familiar with the Marxist concept of ‘ideology’ - a function which ‘naturalises’ the inequalities of power through a complex structure of social perceptions which renders class division invisible. 
  • Yeah. It’s heavy, dude.


  • Based on the linguistic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913)
  • The belief that language shapes humanity, culture, communication, and the way we perceive the world. Yay, go language.
  • Structuralism was a radical theory during the second half of the 20th Century whose central argument opposed liberal humanist ideas (Recap: lib-humans reckoned that human consciousness creates language and culture - structuralists reckoned the complete opposite. At this point everyone is basically being completely contrary for the sake of it.)


  • A critical theory prominent in France in the 1960s, primarily associated with philosopher Jacques Derrida and critic Roland Barthes - a reaction against structuralism as well as a development of it. <sigh>
  • Ok, so this language thing? How about we agree that reality is constituted through language BUT language itself is unstable and beyond our control. Like, language is an unreliable narrator, yeah? Yeahhh.
  • Essentially, it’s language that speaks, not the author. So let’s call it THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR because we are needlessly dramatic. 
  • So, like, literary texts don’t present a single or unified view and the author cannot claim authority on interpretation. (The curtains are blue…)
  • You can trace a whole thread of critical development here from formalist criticism to structuralism to post-structuralism and later to deconstruction - all of which are concerned with the ambiguity and contradictions within text and language. To make it even more confusing, new historicism (see below) can also be seen as post-structuralist since it places stress on a text’s connection to culture rather than relying on the autonomy of the text itself.
  • Time for a stiff drink.


  • A term coined by Stephen Greenblatt (Shakespeare-critic-extraordinaire) in the 80s - a reaction against old historicism (where text is a reflection of historical background) and a move away from Marxist and post-structural theories.
  • New historicism asserts that the text is an active participant in historical development.
  • So, like, art and literature help to create the cultural values of the period in which they are produced. BUT, we are also formed and tied to cultural ideologies, so it ain’t all about the text. 
  • Involves close reading of the text, taking into account political ideology, social practice, religion, class division and conflict within society.
  • A pessimistic take on Foucault: the belief that we are ‘remarkably unfree’ of the influence of society and socio-political power operates through the language of major institutions to determine what’s normal and demonise ‘otherness’.
  • Seriously. Fuck society. 


  • We can’t let the Americans monopolise this kind of criticism.
  • Goddamn Greenblatt.
  • So consider this: how much freedom of thought do we actually have? Does culture shape our identities or can we think independently of dominant ideologies? Huh? Huh? Are we saying anything new yet? 
  • Basically, a historicist approach to political criticism with a revised conception of the connection between literature and culture. 
  • Culture is a complex, unstable and dynamic creature which offers an opportunity for the radical subversion of power and society.
  • Unlike historicism or Marxism, cultural materialists believe the author is able to achieve a degree of independence from prevailing structures of power and discourse. 
  • Often demonstrates optimism for political change - once again, critical theory reflects the critic’s personal opinions and hopes for change in present day society. Literary criticism can change the world, man.
  • Some crossover into feminist/queer/post-colonial theory, because FUCK ALL THOSE OLD WHITE GUYS.


  • Following the women’s movement of the 1960s, feminist theory was established in the 70s and 80s and founded on texts Le Deuxieme Sex by Simone de Beauvoir and Sexual Politics by Kate Millett.
  • Explicitly political – similarities to new historicism and cultural materialism - challenging the subordinate position of women in society and deconstructing/contesting the concept of essentialism, whereby men and women have intrinsically separate qualities and natures. 
  • Often seen as an attack on the Western literary canon and the exclusion of female writers throughout history. Focuses on female characters and authors, exploring the influence and restrictions of patriarchy, and constructions of gender, femininity and sexuality (both in text and culture).
  • Feminists influenced by post-structuralism tend to disregard the positive discrimination of women writers, claiming “it is language that speaks, not the author.”
  • Feminism and psychoanalytical theories (esp Freud and Lacan) contributed to the erosion of liberal humanist ideas, redefining human nature and the concept of child development, and exploring the psychology of patriarchy and male-dominated culture. 


  • During the 80s, queer theory was influenced by post-structuralist ideas of identity as being fluid and unstable, and investigates the role of sexual orientation within literary criticism from a social and political viewpoint.
  • An opposition to homophobia and the privilege of heterosexual culture and an exploration of themes that have been suppressed by conservative critical theory.
  • A look at LGBQTA, non-binary characters and authors and their influence within a historical, political, religious and social context.
  • The end of ‘gal-pals’ and ‘no-homo’, fuckboys.


  • A critique on the English canon and colonial rule with a focus on canonical texts written during periods of colonisation.
  • An exploration of cultural displacement/appropriation and the language and cultural values thrust upon/developed by colonised people.
  • Post-colonial theory gives voices to colonial ‘subjects’ and looks at the impact on individual and collective identity, as well as the complexity of colonial relationships and interaction.
  • Gonna have a lot to do with politics, history, social ideology, religion and international/race relations, obvs. Stay woke.

For those who celebrate Easter/Ostara, here’s a fun egg-hunt game you can play with your family and friends for this year:

Everybody minus one in the group gets to search for eggs. The singled-out person owns the land that the eggs are found on. Make the hunt into a long process, maybe an hour or two. The landlord gets to sit off to the side in a fold-up chair with a cold lemonade and other leisure materials. At the end of it, each of the hunters has to relinquish three-quarters of their eggs to the landlord.

Maybe have kids play it for an early bit of class consciousness.

Hey guys!  Silas here to give you a quick profile of one of the unique mechanics in Gaiden, to help newer players get an idea of what Echoes might look like.  Today, it’s how its class system works.

Gaiden’s classes are unique less in their function and more in how they promote.  For starters, (most) characters can only promote at shrines.

These shrines have been nicely updated for Echoes, and they were kind enough to let us choose whom to promote this time instead of running through them all in a fixed sequence.

Promotions have different requirements than other games as well.  While you still need to be a certain level in a prior class, the levels aren’t consistent.  Villager, the only “tier-0″ class, promotes at level 3, while first tier classes promote at level 7 (with Mages being the exception) and second tier classes promote at 10.  The Villager class in particular is interesting, as they can follow any of five class branches:

In the original Gaiden, the initial promotion was random (albeit cancelable), but thankfully, they’re giving us a sense of agency this time.

One thing of note is that not many stats change on promotion.  In fact, in Gaiden, a unit’s stats will increase to the base stats of the class they promote to, and do not adjust down.  If their stats are universally higher than that class’s bases, they’ll gain a point of HP instead.  Looking at the above screenshot, we can find that this is still the case.  Also confirmed, Villagers still only have 4 Mov, meaning movement values for all classes are likely to be the same as before.

Only Def and Mov change going from Villager to Cavalier.  (Mov still goes down if you promote to a class with less, though.)  Everything else beats the bases, so no change.  Important for strategists, this removes the penalty for promoting early found in almost all other FE games.  The benefits of promoting later are also diminished.

We also have almost-certain confirmation that the promotion levels are about the same as before, because of this guy:

Say hi to Luke or Lukas, depending on whom you ask.  He’s the guy that kicks off the whole plot of Gaiden, and he starts as a Soldier, a pre-promote of “Armor” (which will probably be changed to Knight, while Gaiden’s “Knight” class will likely be changed to Cavalier, to be consistent with other games released in the west).  If Echoes uses the same promotion requirements as other FE games, Lukas would need to have reached level 10 by the third (mandatory) map in the game, which is fairly unrealistic even if the devs added “prologue” maps as they did with the remakes Shadow Dragon and Heroes of Light and Shadow.  On the other hand, level 7, while not easy, is still reasonably attainable by this point.

Oh, one last weird thing.   One of the tier three classes can promote back into Villager.

I don’t know why this is a thing, but they let you do it, and it lets characters who have passed through the Mercenary branch go back into another one, leading to more leveling opportunities and new strategic options so…yeah, knock yourself out.

Speculation Time

As VincentASM over at SerenesForest pointed out, we have a new Villager this time, and her name is Effie (why Effie, though?).  Of note, all Villagers in the original game were male, so there’s a possibility that she could promote into an entirely new set of classes.  Based on comparison between Effie’s second sprite and May’s, it seems that she may have promoted into a Mage in the demo.

…which is unfortunate, because Mage was the only class in the original Gaiden that both genders could use, so that doesn’t give us any new leads.  However, Effie’s inclusion does give hope for other new characters, who may or may not sport new classes with their own unique promotions.

That about wraps it up for this one.  Keep an eye out for another post coming soon – topic of choice: Gaiden’s unique approach to magic.

Please like, comment, and subscribe


mattykinsel  asked:

How do you know the surplus theory of value is real? Like.. you know? And what about situations where you lend a hand for a neighbour and they give you cash for helping idk, clean their garage or something with them. Is that an appropriation of surplus value - how so? Thanks so much!

I’m not sure what you mean by the first part. We live in a class system where the owning class gets to handle the material surplus (generated by the working class) by virtue of their ownership over society’s productive gears; it’s an objective fact that class stratification is real, and class stratification is materially realized in the exploitation of labor and the appropriation of the surplus. 

As for the second part, the communist goal is to make money and market transactions obsolete, not to send some bureaucratic committee around constantly blocking them when they do show up. Like, we don’t concern ourselves with some feudal baron coming into our towns and forcing us into serfdom because we have advanced beyond feudalism, and to suggest that we arrange ourselves in that way is just, well, silly – no one would take you seriously. Modes of production change according to material factors, which in turn influence social factors, which in turn acclimate people to different ways of living, and so on and so forth. Once socialism/communism firmly cements itself, the idea of subjecting everything to hierarchical market transactions and private property rights will seem absolutely ridiculous. Common ownership over the common inheritance will just be taken for granted. 

There’s this persistent argument coming from ancaps and right-wing libertarian types: “If someone wants to sell their labor to me in exchange for a wage, who are you to stop me??” This overlooks the fact that pretty much everyone does not willingly submit to wage labor if they have, ya know, literally any other viable option. If your needs can be more readily provided for through democratic production, in a scenario where you actually get a say in the work you do, why would you “voluntarily” choose to work beneath someone else who takes the bulk of the final product? To reiterate the above point, imagine some feudal landlord asking a bourgeois revolutionary in 1730, “if the peasant prefers to be tied to my land and prefers to pledge loyalty to me, who are you to stop me??” In the end, the bourgeoisie gained power and used enclosures and state violence to drive those peasants into cities to become industrial proletariat, forcing them to adjust to a new system of production. Class stratification isn’t voluntary. 

That tangent aside, it’s about transforming the material realities of society by harnessing power and technology for democratic/grassroots ends, not about dogmatically trying to institute the changes from above. Hopefully I was clear in my explanation, and thanks for the question!


Homosexual desire among working-class men in the north in the Downton era

There are many things to grumble about with regards to historical accuracy in Downton Abbey, but I want to tell you my particular bugbear, which is how Thomas’ sexuality is understood. I can go off on a long, discursive explanation of this, complete with bibliography and quotes, but the basics are that ‘homosexual’, as an identity, had not reached the north during the period in which Downton was set. The Wilde trials codified 'the homosexual’ as a type of person in England, but more specifically in London: the trials were covered up north, but minimally and/or sympathetically (except in the Manchester Guardian which had a very insinuating description of Wilde’s lifestyle). This is an era before nationalisation: regional identity is paramount in understanding the outlook of the downstairs characters, except that Fellowes has apparently forgotten that he’s set DA in North Yorkshire (this Yorkshire lass is displeased).

In the north at this time (1912-1926), there is a strong tradition of physical intimacy in working-class male friendships. Male friends embrace, kiss, bathe together and enjoy watching other men bathing (no really), and share beds. The male and female spheres are very separate, and emotional intimacy is shared not between husband and wife but between same-sex 'mates’.

This also leads in several cases to sex between men, particular in industry, where men in the steelworks and mines would work in very scanty clothing due to the heat, then bathe together, leading to comfort with the naked male bodies of one’s compatriots. Since there is no conception of 'homosexual’ as an identity, this is just seen as something that men do sometimes, among themselves, and there’s nothing wrong with it. Buggery, gross indecency and their like were crimes - but a lot, even most of the working-class men arrested for them at this time don’t seem to have even known this.

Keep reading

World-Building 103 - Creating an Education System

Hey y’all, Abby here with another writing post! Today, I’m going to be talking about your world’s education system and giving some tips of how to write a good, functional one. (This post is going to be included in my world-building series because it’s something I find genuinely important when creating a world.)

So, if your world has different countries, there’s no question that each country’s education system is going to be different. For instance, take a look at the education systems of the United States, Finland, and China. They’re all similar and different in their own ways. Which one is the most successful, and why?

Is that system something you’d like to incorporate into your world? Consider why: Look at the assets and the flaws of the system you chose, and choose which elements belong in your world - and the ones you can take out.

Think about art, for example. How valued (in general) in your education system? Are there art classes? If so, how many - are there specialized ones for each sub-genre of art, or are there only one of two generalized classes? When compared to things like math and science, how important is art - is it less/more important, or are they valued equally? If a student wants to pursue art as a career, how is their choice accepted by those around them?

Now, we’ll look at careers. Is there any type of career that the system tries to persuade the students to look into? Are there general stereotypes as to what careers the “smarter” kids go into? Is there any sort of fallback job for people who drop out of their education? Which is valued more: diplomacy or”real work”? What are some of the career paths younger kids want to choose?

If your world has an element of magic, how is that incorporated? Is the entire system built around teaching students about magic, or is it just an optional class for those who want to teach it? Are any magic classes valued higher than regular courses (like college courses taken in high school)? How relaxed is the system of the use of magic - are they alright with their students using magic during school hours, or is there a strict prohibition?

As for different levels of education… Are there any? Is there anything like elementary/high school/college, or is everything done together? If there are different levels, how many are there and what sets them apart? Are there any advanced levels, where kids in a 2nd level could take classes from the 3rd?On the flip side, is there a program or level for students who need specialized education?

Let’s talk about students who differ from the norm. Kids with disabilities - both mental and physical - how are they treated? By both the people teaching and the students - are they respected and treated as anyone else would be? Are they included in programs that would accommodate for their needs and still provide a good learning environment? If so, what is the different between this program and the regular learning environment?

And finally, we’ll talk about break time. Everybody loves breaks from school, students especially. How often do these breaks come, and how long do they last? Is it something like the United States education system, where each weekend is a break, or do they occur more often/infrequently? As for holidays or religious celebrations, do the students get breaks then? If so, how long to they last?

So, that’s all the writing advice I’ve got for you today! Remember that if you want to see me cover a topic you can always leave a request in my ask box ~ until then, much love! <33

















Page (active)

Knight (passive)


Ward (active)

Heir (passive)


Sage (active)

Seer (passive)


Witch (active)

Mage (passive)


Sylph (active)

Bane (passive)


Scout (active)

Guide (passive)


Dame (active)

Guard (passive)


Thief (active)

Rogue (passive)(don’t spell it rouge or I will personally destroy your brain)


Prince (active)

Bard (passive)


Clown (holy fuck)

Maid (passve)


Smith (active)

Muse (passive)


Waste (active)

Grace (passive)


When students don’t get into the university/college they wanted

You are meant to…

Can't Escape The American School System
  • Me: I have decided not to do my Anthropology final (3,000 word paper, must use every book,article and movie used during the course) because it causes me anxiety to the point that I can't get out of bed without my emergency panic attack medication and because I do not plan on being an Anthro major. I understand and accept that the consequence will be that I end the class with a C.
  • Everyone else: bUT YoUr gRAdeS!!!!

anonymous asked:

ABOvamp: Betas can't conceive once turned. Omegas are rare in that they can, and vampires who were born rather than turned are more highly valued, upper classes pay to buy them from their families or they are owned by the crown automatically once found? (vamps caused by virus? not undead).

ABOVamp: Betas kept for blood cause their less valuable? Or required to donate? Omega: theres a whole societal norm of being considered lucky to be one, cause hey they can’t drink from you when your pregnant (too dangerous?). I imagine still-human omegas are kept as pampers pets until there turned for breeding (in a species as long-lived as vampires you might need the kings permission to breed otherwise there’d be an overabundance of predator and not enough prey. King’s responsibility to stop it

ABOVamp: I imagine Noctis (born vamp) is so privileged he is given Ignis as soon as iggy tested positive for omega (required viral test for all insomnian citizens) and that’s why they grow up together, cause that’s what Regis did

ABOVamp: forgot to mention omega rareness is why claiming bites are both recommended and required if you don’t want other covetous vamps taking whats yours. and if omegas lose some independence due to it well *shrug*

ABOVamp: a bit a humiliation play too, because Vamps are more disturbed(?) humans, like to put on display what they have that other lesser vamps do not, they same way you might show off an expensive car or something. Ignis, having grown up with noctis doesn’t really fear him, but Prompto…he might in the beginning, even when Ignis tells him its ok, who would trust an omega who has never been free like prompto [Did You mean ‘like Ignis’ here?]?

ABOvamp: I’ve been playing too much Bloodborne and basically all of this is a shameful self-indulgence. I love your writing! your very talented and our writing is deceptively simple, rarely a word wasted. Thankyou for your writings!

Okay, I think I got all those assembled together (I’m on my laptop at the back of this dinner I’m attending, looking real anti-social right now, haha, but I couldn’t answer this on mobile and do it justice.) …this is all the same person right? I’m assuming, or else you all have uncanny similar tastes in ask starters. ;) Anywho, ABOVAnon, I really wanted all these together to refer back to because I’m gonna have to write something for it now, all good and proper. But for now, allow to me to ramble to speculate? :D 

Gooooddddd I love all of this on multiple levels? Clearly we have our vampires, of whatever sort they are (I can dig a virus or something causing it.) at the top of this hierarchy, followed by humans and their dynamics, where omegas are ‘special’. I can see parents hoping for omega children for the sole purpose of being able to give/sell them to the vampires. Maybe having an omega kid is something that can set a family up for life (but also results in humans not being close to their omega children, since they know they’ll be sent off eventually.) And Betas (and alphas I assume, or maybe alphas can be a vamp only dynamic? Hmm.) for food. It’s a controlled system in civilized areas, but maybe more ‘wild’ with vamps who hunt and kill, unmonitored, in the more lawless areas (IE: Insomnia vs some other areas of Lucis) But humans live in those places even with the threat over them because at least they aren’t cattle? 

Better wild animals who can fight then cattle in pens?

And then there is Ignis, who tests as an omega and finds himself taken in by the King himself, for his son Noctis. (Ignis’ family find themselves set up very nicely, in the nicest part of Insomnia that humans can live in, with a fair amount of money. Maybe even servants of their own in the form of non-Lucian humans, who immigrated to Lucis? [And here we have a way for Prompto to enter the scene. The children of servant immigrants, secretly an omega, found out somewhere along the way?] So Ignis, knowing full well what his eventual fate is, considers it a worthwhile trade: his life/freedom for his family’s happiness) He’s kept in amazing conditions growing up, fed and groomed, given anything he could ask for, something like a second prince (or a prized pet) as he’s raised at Noctis’ side. He ends up being quite the looker, smart, strong, and an all around fantastic companion who excels in all the areas he’s expected to (Human omegas are expected to be able to ‘entertain’ their patrons in more than just the bedroom after all. But especially there.) and drawing attention early so Regis encourages Noctis to mark him early, least less savory vamps try to snag him. 

Noctis finds the idea…uncomfortable. Ignis is his friend, he doesn’t want to *own* him. He doesn’t really want to turn him or keep him as a ‘breeder’ either. 

Hmm. *thoughtful look*