Azolotl

War Games is about Batman trying to gain control of Gotham's gangs as harm reduction, not stopping their activities but monitoring and controlling them via his ally, Orpheus, who is propped up to lead all the gangs in a coalition. He is unable to do this and it all ends in disaster.

5 seconds later, Jason returns to Gotham and gains control of most of the gangs real quick and then takes out his competitors. He does what Bruce was unable to do and for the same reason, to reduce harm.

But Bruce's actions are framed as heroic and Jason's aren't. Judd Winick himself said "Along with handing out his own brand of justice, he does believe that crime can be controlled. Batman had said it makes you a crime lord. Jason doesn't think it makes him a crime lord at all. He thinks it makes him a much more effective Batman."

I must ask how is it that this makes Jason a crime lord but Bruce wasn't one when he was trying to control the Gotham gangs five seconds ago. How is Bruce on his high horse like "Jason is a crime lord in denial"? What was he five seconds ago then?

And yeah, Jason is more violent than Bruce was of course, but instead of trying to work with him and get him to his side/to be less violent like he did with the other gang leaders, he immediately goes on the offensive.

"𝙿𝚕𝚎𝚊𝚜𝚎 𝚝𝚎𝚕𝚕 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚋𝚒𝚐 𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙸 𝚜𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝚑𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘"

There was a big push to eliminate "degrading jobs" but the strategy was to eliminate the position, then create a new position outside of the bargaining unit to do the work. So like, we wouldn't have dishwashers, but we'd have people who washed dishes that weren't eligible to be in the union.

I was like A) what the actual fuck? Dish washing isn't "degrading", it's fucking vital. B) What the actual fuck? You want to create a union just to exploit different people?

The first time someone told me that busing tables was "degrading", I was like "Oh, uhh, yeah, like it's very necessary work but under compensated for how vital it is?" and they responded "No, touching plates that other people have eaten off of is disgusting."

In bargaining, someone on the Union side suggested that we eliminate all the cashiers and exclusively use self-checkouts (they were a cashier and didn't like it). The organizer told them that the union wasn't in the habit of eliminating bargaining unit positions. (This is the same person I've talked about how said that "as a prison abolitionist" we just needed to execute most criminals.)

It got me thinking, along with Ann Russell talking about how to treat cleaners (being a cleaner herself), about how we conceptualise domestic service as particularly degrading in all its forms, when, really, why is that? Why is paying someone to do something intrinsically bad?

Like, even in a moneyless, gift economy society, there would still be people whose primary contribution to their communities would be cleaning. Some people like to clean, and are really rather good at it.

I've talked ad nauseam in the past about how British attitudes towards cleaners and other service based positions today are the descendants of Victorian attitudes. That is, both the attitudes of conservatives and many progressives of that time. The trade union movement was particularly exclusionary towards service workers.

Pronouns

An accent

There's no need to feel down,

I MEAN YOUNG THEY!