where the reblogs go

Black Hills Pow Wow 2025

Dragging Custer's 7th cavalry flag that was captured when he was defeated at the battle of Little Big Horn.

in anaïs mitchell's own words, hadestown was conceived in the wake of the economic and climate devastation brought on by hurricane katrina. i don't think i need to belabour the concept of hades building a wall to keep the enemy out—explicitly and repeatedly named as poverty. nor do i feel the need to dumb down the environmental message. by hoarding capital for the sake of it, hades destroys the environment for the working class who he requires as fodder for (in the words of william blake) his "dark, satantic mills."

this message isn't particularly subtle, and it shouldn't be.

the vision orpheus presents with his song is not only one of ecological restoration with the seasons, but also community and egalitarian collectivization "if no one takes too much, there will always be enough."

in finishing his song, orpheus succeeds where eurydice cannot: not only setting the seasons right, but returning humanity to the anonymized workers by unionizing them.

i think that, as is the case with a lot of theatre, it's easy to anonymize the chorus. they're extra voices to round out a song or bodies used for the dance break. in hadestown, this anonymity is purposeful. whether above ground or below it, the chorus have been so thoroughly ground under hades' boot that they do not even have the luxury of individuality. their identity is reduced simply to workers.

the workers keep their heads and voices down because it is the only way they can survive, wretched as this existence is. they are not allowed to hold onto their old identities because voices that are too loud can be raised in protest and music. see field hollers, work songs, sea shanties—or chanties; it's no coincidence that two of the songs most explicitly about the toll this backbreaking labour takes on the body are called chants.

moreover, the work that they do—building a wall that will never be finished, extracting resources—isn't merely productive in the sense that it's furthering hades' capital. this form of labour is specifically punitive in a way that is meant to break their spirits. the workers "dig [their] own graves for a living." penal labour is destructive rather than productive. workers are given monotonous and repetitive tasks meant to punish them for a perceived wrongdoing. tasks like moving stones from one pile to another, turning crank machines, or walking on treadmills. the repetitive nature of these tasks was meant to break both body and spirit with no focus on rehabilitation because you are never getting out of prison. we see examples of this hard labour in victorian england, in chattel slavery, and around the world today.

it's easy to get swept up in the romance and forget that orpheus is responsible not only for bringing eurydice out of hell, but the workers as well. when threatened with a strike, hades (encouraged by the fates) breaks up the union. orpheus is separated from eurydice, yes, but also from his fellow workers. his impossible task is meant to break up his community, because community is harder to quell than individual rebels.

Sometimes when an action makes NO sense to us ("he's like a stupid alien"), it's bc we are not understanding its true motivation/purpouse. If his goal was control, financial pressure and limiting her options due to lack of funds, it makes perfect sensie to buy the truck.

Therefore, here is an alternative explanation based entirely on his impulsive feelings:

She's getting near the end of her degree, she's going to be making a lot more than him when she finishes. This makes him angry and jealous. The closer she gets to finishing, the stronger his anger and jealousy gets.

Well, if she's gonna be making so much more than me, the least she can do is pay for my truck. And maybe if she had to pay for this truck she wouldn't even be able to finish school. Then I'd still be man of the house. That would really show her whose boss. Now I feel more in control and less jealous.

"Honey, I bought a truck."

I think we often talk about abusers like we talk about evolution. We say polar bears evolved to have white coats for camouflage. We talk about evolution like it has a plan and is doing things on purpose. But evolution doesn't care about camouflage. Birth rates are all that matter, but evolution doesn't even "care" about them.

I think the majority of abusers don't actually plan things out. They just act impulsively on malicious feelings. It makes them feel good to have lots of power, so they take whatever power they can find. It makes them feel good to make their victims uncomfortable so they do that.

Most abuse tactics can be explained (and should be defended against) as if they are strategic. Just like evolution, it's just easier to talk about that way. But I think most abuser tactics are really just the consequence of impulsively acting on malicious feelings.

Strategy is big picture. It’s about asking “what do I even really want here?” You say you want to Win. What does Winning mean? What does Winning look like?

In an argumentative context, Strategy is about the frame around the picture, so to speak. Are you approaching the conversation as a confrontation or a confession or a Conversion?

Tactics are about individual goals. In wargaming, Tactics are things like pincer attacks and flanking maneuvers; things like armor penetrating ammo and anti-cavalry fortifications.

In an argumentative context, Tactics are things like making an attack ad hominem, or shifting the goalposts, or turning the tables.

Abusers tend to be excellent Tacticians but terrible Strategists. They often do not even recognize good/healthy relationships as such. Their Strategy is a mess. They would not recognize victory if they stood in the midst of it.

But. They are very good at not losing. They are very good at making sure that the other person doesn’t win.

A good relationship is win-win; both parties benefit mutualistically from the symbiosis.

for any address to twitter you can replace the “x.com” with “nitter.net” and you will be able to browse as if you have an account. Lifesaver.

moonsong

Backlash against 2010's hustle culture? Backlash against 2000's "girls can do anything" messaging? I don't know. But why are the AI advertisements all about how you forgot your wife's birthday or your boss's deadline and the AI saves you? Why is the ideal young-20s woman a frail little girl who lives on her boyfriend's income and makes him lattes while she does nothing all day? Even the sports-betting craze feels like it reskinned the "savvy young day-trader who's skilled at reading the market" to "blind and dumb luck might make you a millionaire so you should try."

And it feels like there's something here because like--yeah AI is being advertised as a functionality of convenience, but so have things like food delivery apps. And I swear my best recollection of food delivery app advertisements used to be like, "busy mom comes home from work and finds the kids messed up dinner--oh well, at least there's doordash!" Like the key target is not someone lazy or useless, they're just busy as hell and won't this convenience service we offer help them a bit?

The instagram girlies were running businesses in the 2010's--most of them scammy bullshit I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole--but the aesthetic of being busy, hustling, operating with drive and passion, was in. The men were founding start-up companies and calling themselves entrepreneurs--again, scammy, 10 foot pole, etc. But the aesthetic of doing something and being capable was in vogue.

Dawn