“Morning, Commander”
Anonymous asked:
I understand if this comes off as sealioning, but how does police abolition propose addressing major crimes like homicide? And as a corollary, should abolition extend to "white-collar" investigations? What about regulatory powers like the FDA?
I don't think it comes off as sealioning, since I did bring up the topic of police abolitionism in my discussion of The Wire.
To be honest, I really don't know the answers to your questions, beyond knowing a few rhetorical moves that have been used. I did some reading in police abolition literature in 2020 when "defund the police" had its brief moment in the sun, but I don't think I ever got a satisfactory answer to the questions I had at the time.
I did read enough to know that the answers will be different for the "strong" versus "weak" version of police abolition.
The funny thing about the whole Defund the Police/Abolish the Police nonsense, is that all around the world, countries have dealt with, and succeeded in creating better, more effective and less corrupt, and far less trigger happy police.
There are plenty of great examples to look to for how to improve the Police in every, single, way, but because the whole thing has become an ideological issue for the Americans, rather than a question about practical reality, they have ripped down any chance to actually go in and make real, genuine, genuine, lasting changes for the better.
Better and longer training and vetting period, training new recruits to not think of themselves as Jack Bauer, enforcing and upholding that the Police must have personal camera's on at all times for most crime solving to be legitimate, a separate organization founded exclusively to deal with corruption and brutality in Police ranks with real genuine power to deal with it, making sure cash funding actually goes where it should, and so on, and so on.
There are so many ways to easily improve the Police, but because Utopianists have made way too many people belive that a world withouth law enforcement is possible, its only gotten worse, and it will continue to get worse as the areas where lesser levels of crime has become effectively legal(California and it's thousands and thousands of stores being robbed in open daylight, and no one doing anything about it is a great example of this) will continue to chug along until it reaches a breaking point, while the ones where Police power held fast will be able to point at those areas, and say, "see? This shit is what happens when you cut police funding, and curtail their power." And in the end, it will all return to the way it was before, with no changes.
Real, genuine change is hard, it takes time, effort, and resources, and it will be a generation before you see effective results, but it is the only way you see genuine, lasting change in the world. catchy ideological driven slogans promise quick, easy solutions to complex problems, never fucking work, and usually leaves everyone worse off in the long run.
Imu the Great Darkness
So, now that we've seen the power of Imu, it is very clear by looking back at previous powers in the series, and see how the hidden ruler's powers relates to an Element that One Piece has been pretty sparse utilizing up until now.
The power of Darkness, before this only utilized by Moria and Blackbeard.
The Gorosei ultimately proving themselves to seemingly just be an extension of Imu's power, and their true form being animalistic shapes of shadows makes makes them seem like a more sentient and more advanced version of the way the Kage Kage no Mi allows it's user to make it's own shadow a seperate entitiy.
This connection is further hammered home by the way Imu's shadow self has a very distinctly devil look, similar to Moria's shadow.
Wheter it be the maw...
Or the Devil Tail that is used as a projectile to punch through Cobra.
There is also the way Imu's body seems to have very unique properties, hanging on the throne like a shadow, and yet also distinctly sitting on top of it.
All of this is a deliberate callback to Thriller Bark and Moria's very unique powerset, and presumably the same kind of mechanics.
There is however one more question.
How does Imu's strange shadow powers relate to the Yami Yami no Mi?
In Imu's introduction chapter, we see Imu petulantly rip apart 3 different wanted poster while contemplating a picture of Vivi.
We have the context for 3 of these now. Luffy as the eater of the Gomu Gomu no Mi has become the new Joy Boy, Shirahoshi is the new Poseidon, and Vivi is a descendants of a bloodline that Imu regards as traitors, but isnt quite sure whether or not actually belong to the D Lineage.
But then there is Blackbeard. Why is he here? At first reading it seemed like Blackbeard was lumped together with these because he seemed to deliberately model himself as the new Rocks D. Xebec, but with the reveal of Imu's very distinctly powers over darkness and shadows, it seems more likely that Imu hates Teach because he consumed the power of the Yami Yami no Mi, the power that the World Government has deemed as the most "Evil" of all Devil Fruits.
It could be that this Devil Fruit is to Imu's power what the Mogu Mogu no Mi is to the Mera Mera no Mi, as essentially "Darkness, but better" and thus poses an existential threat to the ruler of the world.
Or maybe as the only devil fruit with the power to cancel out other Devil Fruits completely, Imu is terrified of being put against this fruit.
Regardless, what is more interesting, is that Imu's power does not seem to resemble that of Blackbeard in any way, be it in looks, or the way it affects the world around it.
Anonymous asked:
Eh, you say that Luffy wouldn't care if his crew were murderers and thieves, but I think he would at least care about the kind of murderers or thieves they were. He often protects stuff/people he has no connection to out of principle like Hililuk's flag or Brownbeard. I think it says a lot that all the crew members he's chosen are good people. Idk if that counts as Luffy being a good person, but he definitely likes good people and prefers to help them and associate with them.
Correction, I said he didn’t care if his friends and allies were murderers and brigands. Luffy has no problem teaming up Capone whose end goal is to cause chaos for shits and giggles. Hell, he teamed up with Crocodile when Croc tried to murderkill him and his entire crew. It doesn’t matter. If your goals happen to align with his, he doesn’t care.
Luffy is not fundamentally against killing people, as Whole Cake Island showcases pretty clearly. Not only does he put his methaphorical seal of approval to assassinating Big Mom, but His and Nami’s big fight with the Big Mom Pirates army left plenty of dead bodies in it’s wake.
However, there is a moment in the series where we do get Luffy very clearly standing opposed(And very angrily at that) to one of his crewmates murdering people.
At Whiskey Peak, Luffy get absolute irate against Zoro for cutting down Whiskey Peak Bounty hunters(While it’s hard to guess how many of them he killed, Its safe to say at least a few dozens died at the very least), and is ready to sever all ties with him for his actions.
But it’s not because Zoro killed someone. It’s because he killed people luffy regarded as friends for having fed them(very similarily to how he would later regard Rebecca as one for having fed him).
Luffy does not care about friends of allies killing people per say... But he does very much care about them killing people he himself cares about, and if they do cross that methaporical line in Luffy’s view, Luffy does not hesitate to act in response.
Also when the entire thing was cleared up, we learn that Luffy thought the reason Zoro killed all these people was because they didnt have his favorite drink, but once he learned the truth, he had absolutely no issues with Zoro having carved up all these people into a bloody mess of meat, blood and bone.
Zoro might have killed as much as 95 or so people this night, and Luffy flat out does not care so long as he knows they were enemies who wanted to kill him and his crew.
The Piece That Does Not Fit - An Enies Lobby Theory
So one thing that didn't really strike me until recently rereading One Piece, is just how odd Enies Lobby actually is, and how literally none of the questions one might have about it is raised by the characters, or explained.
Its an Island located inside of a giant hole in the ocean, where the sea just falls down in a circular waterfall withouth end.
That all on it's own is interesting, and makes it stand out drastically, but it doesn't end there.
The island is also infamous for being a place where there is always daytime, and it's always sunny.
Then there is the island itself. The island is split into two pieces, with the main body sitting precariously above the abyss, only held up by a bit of stone jutting out from the ocean.
The stone is ludicrously durable too, not only not breaking due to the sheer weight of the city on top of it despite the not exactly good foundations, but also surviving the Buster call as well.
While chunks of the stone was blown up by the bombardment, for the most part the island actually held up pretty well all things considered.
All of this is very interesting stuff, but what stuck me the most on my most recent rereading, is that all of this does remind me of something, but also highlights how strange it actually is.
The unique feature of the giant hole that seemingly cannot be filled, the way the entire place defies the laws of physics, the eternally shining sun... All of this seems like something you'd find in the New World, where the laws of reailty goes to die in a corner... But not in Paradise.
It just doesn't fit.
And if there is anything we can tell by comparing it to the likes of Punk Hazard, it's safe to say, that something happened here long, long ago.
Something created this gigantic hole, something altered the very fabric of reality to make it always be daytime here, and something either made the stone here ludicrously durable, or it was like that from the start.
But wait, there's more.
There is also the ancient city on top of it.
Just looking at the art style of the architecture, and the coloring, it's very easy to see that this city was here before the World Government came in and added newer structures.
That could mean a whole host of things. It could be that the original city was abandoned at some point, and the marines recolonized it, and simply kept the buildings in place, because there was no reason to tear them down, but it could also be that the original people was conquered by the World Government, and their lands taken.
That however would not explain anything else of the bizarre features of the island. A simple battle and conquest cannot explain any of it. Something happened here, but it's hard to say what.
It is tempting to try and connect it directly to the Void century, and the great Kingdom, but by looking at the architecture, one can tell that it's a very different style from the old capital of that lost nation.
However, this does not mean that it was not involved in that ancient conflict, and in fact, thematically speaking there is a possible connection here, and one that would make logical sense as well.
Enies Lobby is thematiclaly connected to Pluton, being as the entire arc taking place on it revolved around the possible ressurection of the weapon, but it might go deeper than that.
Pluton was was made in Water Seven. And Water Seven is an island that is extremely close Enies lobby on the map.
And what was Pluton, the "Worst Battleship in History" famous for?
Wiping Islands from the face of the map.
My theory, is that whoever it was that used Pluton during the war, and whoever it was that held Enies Lobby at the time, the might of the legendary battleship was leveled at it, mayhaps it's first target... And it promptly blew the entire foundation out from under it, warping the cycle of night and day, creating a massive hole that seemingly cannot be filled, and leaving a tiny sliver of the original island left.
Thus creating Enies lobby. The piece of Paradise that does not fit, where the sun always shines, and where the Ocean ends.
They are so mf sappy and cringe smh look at them
Taking cover and keeping warm in the rain
So, it's kinda glossed over, and not really given much focus, but there is something very eerie about Seeing Sanji sift through a small host of dead corpses that Luffy and Nami left in their wake.
Luffy has, with the possible exception of Shiki, never killed a named antagonist, so it's sometimes easy to forget that he doesn't actually hold himself to a no killing standard. He's rampaged through a lot of battlefields, and never held back. It would be silly to think he doesn't have a massive body count from those rampages.
But we never get to see the aftermath of those rampages. The buster call wiped Enies Lobby clean of any mooks Luffy might have killed on his way to the Drawbridge building. We don't get to see how catastrophic his assault on Sabaody is for the common Marines he punched through, and however many died in the escape from Impel Down due to his action specifically is easily drowned out by the action of everyone else, and at Marineford, luffy(who amongst other things deliberately reflected bullets back so they would hit vital spots on the attacking marines) was so few compared to all the rest his actions barely register.
But not here.
Here, we get to see the aftermath of one of Luffy's rampages, and no attention is drawn to it. Sanji is, not shocked that Luffy and Nami killed what seems to be at least 50 people at most, no disguisted comment that the Big Mom Pirates just left these mooks out to rot, no unease about the fact he's moving through a field of corpses.
The only thing on his mind, is whether he'll find his captain or not.
And once we move on from this location, the fact that Luffy and Nami killed a shit load of people is never brought up again.
Its a delightfully eerie scene, that fits in perfectly with all the other disturbing scenes in the Cake Island Arc.
Sasha's Parents
Allright, so thanks to the diary we finally got some definite info on Sasha's parents. Let's dissect it, and analyze how the divorce might have turned her into the person she is today.
According to Anne, Sasha's parents divorced when she was around four- or five-years-old. Her father remarried and doesn't seem to have had any other kids, while her mother has a long-term boyfriend who has kids of his own.
So what does this tell us? Well, the first thing we have to do is speculate which of Sasha's parents has custody of her, because knowing that, we can draw a lot of conclusions.
Personally, I am almost certain that it's her father, for reason i'll go into below.
Firstly, let's analyze the events of the divorce, before trying to figure out how the events of the series relates to the original plan the creators had to have an episode where Sasha reveals the full details of her backstory to Anne.
Mr and Mrs Waybright divorced when Sasha was 5 years old, but the implication we get from what little we know about the two people involved suggests that this wasn't simply a case of two people realizing things weren't working out... Because the implications seems to be that Mrs Waybright left her husband for another man... Who already had kids of his own, and who she very explicitly did not marry.
Why is this important? Because it explains everything we ever needed to know about Sasha's seething, burning desire to always be in control, and more importantly, on top.
Because in Sasha's 5 year old mind, seeing her mom leave her dad for another man, who already had a bunch of kids, while abandoning her, is tantamount to saying that she was worthless in her mother's eyes. She didn't measure up. Clearly her mom cared more about these kids than her... When in reality, it was the new boyfriend she actually cared about, not the kids. Neither the new ones... Or her own flesh and blood.
It also explains perfectly why Sasha's reaction to the Plantars "Stealing" Anne from her turned her downright murderous. In her mind it was basically history repeating itself again. Her losing someone she loved to another family she knew nothing about.
No wonder this girl hated the very concept of family.
Meanwhile, her dad married another woman, which which can safely assume was not a warm, loving relationship. More likely than not, whether this woman wanted to try and be a mother to Sasha, it's abundantly clear that that wasn't gonna happen. After the divorce, Sasha would have rejected any and all attempts at replacing her mother, and that stuck.
Her eternal quest to make Anne and Marcy happy is also explained by this. Sasha wants to make the people she loves happy. She wants them to like her, to appreciate her, to be rewarded with love and attention by people she loves and cares about.
But while this does explain a lot(Her control issues, her disdain for family, her non existent love for said family) there is still some things it does not explain, or at least there seems to be something more we aren't told.
So, let's put forth another question, to explain the things that a simple, if ugly divorce does not explain.
Was Sasha abused by her parents?
Throughout the series, Sasha continously says some extremely heavy lines, that though they fit perfectly with what is happening in the moment, all seem to be as a response to something else that happened previously in Sasha's life, that we just don't have the context for.
When Sasha hits her absolute lowest point, after having seemingly destroyed the only thing she truly cared about for Good and all, Sasha very deliberately refers to herself as belonging in the Trash, and that it's all someone like her deserves, in a tone that suggests she is accepting something she felt deep in her heart was innevitable.
That could be her being overly dramatic... But it could be something else.
Like she had been told that this was all she amounted to, a worthless brat who no one would love, who belonged in the trash.
Not while Anne and Marcy are getting by withouth me.
This line is pretty clear in it's meaning, but again, the way it's said and worded suggests it's referencing something someone else said at some point.
Hey anne... Maybe you're better off without me.
Sasha's famous line when she decides to kill herself is an important one, and one where she proves that she is willing to lay down her life for anne if it comes to that.
But knowing the circumstances with her parents divorce, it's hard not to read more into it. That Sasha had a genuine fear that her mother didn't just leave her, but that she was better off withouth her.
That could be projecting... but it doesn't have to be. Sasha could have heard it straight from the horse's mouth.
End of discussion
This one is absolutely referencing a line. This is a line Sasha uses to shut down any arguments Anne has when Sasha wants the discussion to end.
But that isn't something kids tend to learn on their own. They learn that by example. By mimicking others.
So before going into speculation of how Sasha may or may not have been abused, lets finish by pointing out the biggest argument for it.
The incredibly unsettling, and unnatural way Sasha does not care about her Parents in any way.
Sasha makes it abundantly clear throughout the entire series that she does not care about her parents. At all. Her relationship with them isn't a complicated one. It's nonexistent. As far as she cares, it does not exist.
That is incredibly unnatural behavior from a child. Even the most abused, or neglected of children will usually have some form of natural attachment to their parents, or parental figures. It's simply the way human beings are made.
It takes A LOT to break that bond completely, even for an adult.
But Sasha isn't an adult. She is a child. And yet her bond to her parents is as far as she is concerned for most of the series, broken beyond any repair.
And she doesn't care to try and fix it. That all on it's own speaks volumes of just how BAD her relationship with her folks are.
So, let's get to speculating on what exactly the kind of abuse Sasha might have gone through with her parents, because there is probably two very distinct kinds from each of her parents.
Of the two, I would guess that if she was abused, the most visceral part came from her mom.
Most of Sasha's biggest issues are clearly a result of her mother leaving her, and so this would make sense.
So, what sort of abuse might Sasha have suffered at the hands of her mother that broke her down so badly, given the woman left her behind, and so probably didn't interact with her much beyond this?
If i had to guess, all of it probably stems for what happened during the divorce, where her mom essentially put all her cards on the table, and let her real feelings be put on full display.
And there are several reasons her mom might have had to lash out at her own child. It could be as simple as the fact she used Sasha to hurt her now ex-husband. Rubbing in that he was stuck with her now.
It could be that sasha was an unplanned child that she didn't want, and had secretly resented for all five years of her life.
She may have been pressured into having her by her Mr Waybright, and now that she no longer had to even try to make him happy, she made it abundantly clear how much she never wanted the damned child he put in her.
Or she could flat out not have liked Sasha, based solely on her personality.
Whatever the reasons, it's clear that the events of the divorce shattered Sasha to her core, and would be essential into forming her into the person she was at the start of the series.
Having one of the people that Sasha(Who is a person who forms STRONG attachments) loves more than any other, turn on her completely, and reveal she always hated her would probably have done the trick.
Now, let's move on to Mr Waybright.
I am very certain that Sasha probably learned the "End. Of. Discussion." From him, as their relationship seems to have been a different kind of breakdown.
Namely that he seems to have given up on Sasha, giving her a level of personal control over her life that is downright irresponsible, letting her throw parties on the regular, seemingly giving her free access to cash as she needs it, and having failed to instill any discipline into his kid.
These are all classic symptoms of a relationship where the parent has given up, and simply gives the kid what they want so they don't have to deal with them.
But was this always the case?
The simple fact is, that with what we know of Mrs Waybright, the extreme destruction of her relationship with Sasha makes sense. There are details one has to speculate on, but there is a clear line to follow from point A to B.
Not so with Mr Waybright.
We know where they ended up, the turning point, but not the steps between.
The only thing we have to go on, Is that amongst her many, many unusual traits for someone so young, Sasha has a much older person's view on discipline. Namely she does not respond to it, because she does not respect the person delivering it, be they teachers or Grime.
It does not take a genius to figure out that this probably stems from her relationship with her father.
The simplest, and most likely explanation is that Mr Waybright attempts at parenting probably involved a lot of discipline, and attempts to instill Sasha with a sense dread at a phrace with the meaning of "This conversation is over".
In this he obviously failed, Because for whatever reason(probably something that happened during the divorce) Sasha does not respect him... But Sasha in turn seems to have learned this very kind of tactic herself from him.
Mr Waybright thusly seems to have had more of a sense of familial obligation to Sasha... At least trying to instill her with something resembling discipline... Until finally just giving up on her all together and just letting her do as she pleased.
All in all whether there was actual abuse involved, or just a child's entire world crumbling due to a very ugly divorce, I really, really wish we'd gotten Sasha's backstory episode.
A lil Raised in Amphibia AU Sashanne, as a treat ^^
I know that you don't like Star Wars that much anymore, but is there some modern Star Wars content that you do like?
Final clone wars season i guess? Though whether you consider that a part of disney Star Wars, or the last Hurrah of the old one is a different question.
Speaking of Danny Phantom, I honestly think we should give all the credit to Steve Marmel for making DP a well rounded show in the first two seasons, cause the moment Butch took the reins in S3, the quality started to dip.
Oh yeah, totally. Among other writers.
Steve Marmel also prefered that Danny ended with Valerie Gray instead of Sam, something that Butch Hartman didn't want, Lol.
the whole Butch insisting on Danny not ending up with Valerie Gray instead of Sam, despite being far more interesting and better written, remind me a lot of how Paul Dini is obsessed with Bruce Wayne x Barbara Gordon despite just how much the ships flat out sucks. Similarily, he had the exact same reaction with max x terry in Batman Beyond, where fans just did not like Terry's actual girlfriend for a variety of reasons.
Both him and Butch have genuine talents and skills... But when it comes to the ships they had in their heads at the start, they just won't let them go despite both fans and their fellow writers and creators on the shows telling them what a terrible idea they were.
So about TOH it wasn't because the show being LGBT at points was because it was cut short, Disney cut it short because they didn't like how dark and serialized it was getting.
Officially announced reasons, and the actual reasons arent quite the same thing.
The holiday/end of year season got me busy and lacking motivation like mad, trying to get back into the flow with doodling.
i also picked up the Witcher AND pokemon so like. The video game brain drain is real sdkjhfs
Amphibia's Needed 4 seasons
When looking over Amphibia as a whole, it's easy to blame Disney for screwing over the show's quality in the third season, after getting pissed over true colors.
And there certainly is a lot to blame them for, as there is no doubt that they were responsible for the creators not being able to commit to exploring all the ideas they set up in the second season finale, and the tonal shift it promised.
However, there is also one other, massive problem with Amphibia that is not actually Disney's fault, instead being a result of how Amphibia was planned out from the start.
Namely that from day one(Literally, it was pitched this way) Amphibia was planned to be a 3 season long show.
In hindsight, this was actually terrible idea, as the overall structure of the series can tell you.
Season 1 had a very clear progression, with Anne and Sasha being stuck in the Valley and having to deal with it, befriending new people and making mistakes and growing from them.
Season 2 began in the aftermath of the Season 1 finale, and had the cast go on a journey, which ultimately led to the 3 girls being reunited, their various goals colliding, and the machinations of our villains coming to fruition, and everything all exploding in a glorious finale.
Both these seasons are clear stories, with a beginning and an end, and the steps in between given a full seasons worth of episodes to explore them in full.
But then we get into season 3.
Season 3 is 2 completely different stories, with each half having their own distinct beginning and ending, with their respective plots being very different from the other.
The first half deals with Anne and the Plantars on Earth, while the second half is all about the cast on Amphibia.
And the thing is, both of these two halfs beginnings and endings work. They're not perfect, but fundamentally this is how the story should be told.
The problem comes in between the biginnings and the endings of these respective stories.
Because neither half had even close to enough episodes to make their respective tales work out, even if Disney hadn't meddled all throughout season 3.
Season 3A is a slow affair, that takes it's time, and isn't close to covering Anne's emotional journey by the time it ends, something it wouldn't have been able to do in full, even if disney hadn't censored the creators plans.
Frankly speaking, season 3A plays like the creators didn't quite realize they only had so many episodes to tell their story with, and so took their time with stuff that by any metric should have been cut in favor of other stuff given their episode limitations.
And you can tell that it was only in the second half that they had suddenly realised, holy shit! We have SO MUCH we gotta do!
Commander Anne is rushed beyond belief, speed running Anne and Sasha's reunion, and only held together by the sheer strength of the bond between these two girls in spite of the sheer amount of stuff that has to be done in that entire episode really should have had 2-4 episodes all on their own.
But they couldnt do that. Because they only had half a season to tell the story of the return to Amphibia.
The rest of 3B is nowhere near as rushed as Commander Anne, but it is rushed, and it speeds along way too fast towards its finale, when the show desperately needed some time to breathe and relax. It even ended up cutting one fully planned and important episode(Sasha's origin story) along the way to the finale.
While Disney screwed over Amphibia, Amphibia NEEDED to split season 3 into two full seasons for the show to truly hit it's full potential.
And that was a mistake on the part of it's creator, who clearly made a huge blunder when planning this story out. Amphibia ISN'T a three part story. It's a 4 part story, where part 3 and 4 got smushed together to the detriment of the product.
What do you think S3 of Amphibia would've been like if Disney wasn't constantly on to them about a lot of things?
well for one thing, Anne would most certainly have had some form of breakdown in 3A where her denial about Marcy being dead finally crumbles, and she has to come to some kind of terms with the fact one of her friends died.
In turn this would mean her reaction to learning Marcy did in fact survive would have been less nonchelant.
Sasha's backstory episode being cut may or may also have been due to disney interference.
overall though i think season 3 would have been far more willing to explore the psycological issues of it's cast, similar to how avatar season 3 did in the aftermath of the fall of ba sing sei. also, Sasha would probably have lost an eye during all in, rather than that wound across the back.
as for shipping, i have no idea. as much as i do believe my theory sashanne was originally gonna end up as a thing, i dont know if disney's interference was the cause, or if the creators just got cold feet upon realising the fact that it was the least popular ship, and so would piss off a lot of people(as kataang did after winning in avatar). or a mix thereoff. i could see all of them being possibilites.