woke: will smith enabler. will smith looking on fondly while mack retells the story of punching a hole in his windshield mere hours prior. will smith grinning to himself when mack calls dec. 13th his favorite game that he’s played. will smith who won’t start a scrum, but who will plaster himself against someone’s back and hold on just to watch mack’s flashing eyes and gritted teeth over their shoulder. who might hold tighter so mack can get an extra hit or two in. will smith who wonders what it’ll take for him to actually drop the gloves for the first time, who dreams that night about split knuckles and bloodied teeth and wakes up sweating and out of breath.
Imagine if an alchemist in 2025 discovered the legendary Philosopher's Stone that turns lead into gold, and mainstream chemists reacted in the manner of "your use of cheetah semen did not have IRB approval and your lead exposure is above the XYZ threshold, this is dangerous and illegal!" and snubbing the whole topic, while the alchemist became a billionaire and was showing off his gem-encrusted golden throne on Twitter. Gold prices stayed the same because the alchemist was still only making a personal-scale amount, while big name clout havers and prestigious institutions denied there was anything to be learned here, denouncing the alchemist for trafficking in illegal substances or ignoring him entirely.
This is sort of how I view the El Salvador situation.
El Salvador used to have an overall homicide rate of about 60 per 100K people per year. (2000-2010 average, the individual years are spiky.) Another way of framing this stat is that with 6 million people, the small country saw about 10 homicides per day. It was a stock example of a dangerous Central American country plagued by drugs, gangs, and drug gangs, with a long history of coups to boot.
Nayib Bukele's administration has brought the homicides per capita rate down over several years, falling to about 2 per 100K per year in 2023 and 2024. This puts it on par with nice quiet European countries like Estonia. The average homicides per day in El Salvador is now less than one, and the country can now count days since last homicide instead. In 2024 they got to 14 days as their best streak, according to Google. Bukele's administration has saved thousands of lives, in large part by throwing criminals in prison, and the Salvadorans love it.
There is an obvious success here. It made things much better. It should be learned from and copied and iterated on. Even if the 30x improvement doesn't fully generalize, 5x would still be great, or bringing down to 2 per 100K would improve a lot of places.
This applies to violent crime more generally. Homicide stats are used partly because homicide is a good index crime. The stats on homicide are less fudged than other crime stats, because a homicide is harder to obfuscate than a robbery or rape, but many of these are committed by the same sort of people and will decrease together.
There are concerns about Bukele's approach having significant downsides: torturous conditions in prisons, collateral damage to innocents, reduced due process, militarization of the state, et cetera.
I contend that these concerns are non-central. The torturous conditions reflect Bukele's lack of care for prisoners perceived as hardened criminals, and play little or no causal role in the crime reduction. The absence of these factors would not significantly attenuate the overall effectiveness of a similar approach. To put that in less technical language: If a genie granted a wish for every Salvadoran prisoner to have a roomy cell and good food, this would not send the homicide rate back up to 60, nor even to 10.
Reasonable people wishing to learn from Bukele's reduction of the homicide rate from 60 to 2 while also considering these concerns might make a "good parts" plan along the lines of: hire more police to find and arrest criminals more often, put bodycams on the police for transparency, hire more judges to sentence criminals faster while preserving due process, build more prisons to hold these criminals, reduce the thresholds for sentencing repeat offenders to prison, et cetera. Reducing America's homicide rate to 2 per 100K per year would save thousands of lives a year, and looks achievable given El Salvador's example.
Prestigious people are frequently not reasonable about it. They respond like for example Carlos Dada of the Harvard Review, in his piece "Lessons from El Salvador":
Gang members were treated as bloodthirsty monsters as if they had landed from outer space, and not as what they were: the most violent and cruel expression of our society, a consequence, rather than a cause, of our dysfunctional social and economic structures.
Carlos Dada repeatedly goes on about social and economic structures, political and economic problems, the inequality gap, the minimum wage, privatization, neoliberalism, and so on. He is passionate about denying the agency and responsibility of violent criminals, because the economy made them do it. He offers no such excuse to Bukele, of course.
But the accord had a couple of mayor [sic] flaws—easy to say now that we know the consequences. One was the lack of socio-economic measures to reduce the scandalous inequality gap and commit to a much wider distribution of national wealth.
The accord in question being the 1992 peace treaty which ended the twelve-year Salvadoran Civil War. The man looks at a peace treaty and complains it wasn't doing wealth redistribution.
History has shown us one and again that repression by itself can never bring peace anywhere. Bukele’s repression and massive incarcerations strategy has been tried before, although arguably never with such results. But where there is no independent judicial system, where security forces act with impunity and where the poor and marginalized have no agency, peacebuilding is an impossible task.
Dada titles his piece "Lessons from El Salvador", but he has learned nothing. He is, in a word, prejudiced. Dada is ideologically committed to believing that Bukele's very old-fashioned strategy of imprisoning violent criminals can't succeed, so he puts a lot of fine words into redefining success and peace, selectively assigning agency, and playing word games. It's a well-written polemic against Bukele, and a very bad response to improvements in El Salvador.
Perhaps you object that Carlos Dada is not representative of proper expertise, he's merely a VIP backed by Harvard, international press awards, and other high-status pageantry that tells people he should be listened to. Well; consider the Annual Review of Criminology for more formal expertise, which "provides comprehensive reviews of significant developments in the multidisciplinary field of criminology".
The 2024 and 2025 issues of the A.R.C. have no mention of El Salvador nor Bukele in their article titles, nor summaries. (I have not read every word to check for a passing mention buried somewhere on page 43.) I don't see any optimistic title like "A Tenfold Reduction In Homicide Is Possible" which might be trying to get the good parts.
What I do find that might vaguely be near the topic is "Crime and Governance in the Global South", which opens like this:
This article considers the relationship between crime and governance on the peripheries of the Global North. It draws on examples from across the Global South to show how conceptualizations of crimes are impacted by history, politics, and socio-economic contexts and how crime is influenced by, and in turn influences, governance practices. The review centers on four arguments: Western ideologies and epistemologies are inadequate for conceptualizing the nexus between crime and governance in the Global South; understandings of crime must be informed by knowledge of contextual harmscapes; models of crime control and policing do not always capture the hybridity and plurality of everyday governing practices in the Global South; and crime dynamics intersect with governance structures to create complex challenges for state control.
Then they start reflecting on their own unpacking of the concept of the "Global South", with stuff like:
a knowledge reclamation movement (Carrington et al. 2018) that recognizes diverse political, social, and economic realities that differ from the metropoles of Western Europe and North America while also rectifying knowledge omissions borne of colonialism, neo-imperialism, and Western capitalists’ false universal knowledge claims (Connell 2007).
These are unserious people. A year of Bukele and friends describing how they carried out their crackdown and suggestions for replicating it elsewhere would be a better use of the A.R.C. than this.
El Salvador has shown that a better way is possible, and the A.R.C. is busy with "but have you considered the viewpoint of Muslim Feminists in the Global South?" self-caricatures of intersectionality, thinking the developments in El Salvador aren't significant.
I'm back on my bullshit, and my bullshit is yelling about the trashfire that is Judai Yuki and Yubel. This post is a collection of thoughts on how Amon and Echo were clearly meant to reflect Judai and Yubel in some way or other, and how it feels like it should be neater than it is. The parallels are there, but it's not fully symmetrical and some of the angles are kind of weird...so yeah, kind of like a (non-isosceles) trapezoid!
(Geometry Tumblr do not @ me, I'm doing my best with this metaphor)
Spoilers for GX season 3, naturally. I haven't said it before, but for this post as well as previous ones I'm basing all information and characterization on the sub version of GX rather than the dub (which drastically changes Yubel's backstory and motives).
Yubel and Amon
This is the most obvious one, because Yubel spends two whole episodes and honestly some of their most iconic monologues trying to tear Amon down after building him up the whole season.
They're both antagonists willing to cause harm to the one they love for their goals. For Amon, that goal is the power to build a utopia. For Yubel, the harm is the goal - or at least, the metric by which they will have achieved their goal (showing their love for Judai).
Yubel, of course, claims that Amon is more selfish in his use of harm. Pain is love in their philosophy, but it's mutual pain - dishing out the pain without taking any back would only be mere cruelty. This of course misses the nuance that Echo wanted Amon to use her as a sacrifice, while Judai didn't welcome any of Yubel's twisted affections.
Still, from what I've seen most people agree that Yubel comes across as more "honest" one way or another. And to understand why things feel that way, it's important to look at their backstory and motivations, as well as how their motivations change.
Yubel dedicated themself to Judai's past life, tying themself to him through lifetimes, and in the present remained true to that devotion in unwanted ways. When Judai sent them to space and it ended up being Oops! All Torture, Yubel developed their sadomasochistic philosophy as a coping mechanism and an attempt to reconcile Judai's past promises and present actions.
Upon their return to Earth, they planned to return the "favor": by sending Yubel to the pain and isolation of outer space Judai made them stronger (i.e., infected by the Light of Destruction, with all that entails), so they'll give him his own painful experience (all of season 3) to make him stronger (awaken his power as Supreme King). Then they'll reunite, having both demonstrated their love for each other, and [this part is where the Light of Destruction really twists up their thinking]. Everything they do is in the name of this motive*, whether Judai really likes it or not.
Amon dedicated himself to the Garam conglomerate with Echo by his side before being replaced by his younger brother Sid, the sole blood Garam sibling. He nearly murdered Sid before changing his mind and dedicating himself wholly to his brother instead, a decision Echo and Yubel both describe as willingly chaining himself to their service. Even when given an opportunity to become the heir (all it'd take is watching his brother die to illness, not even murder) he rejects it, and begs for a way to save him.
And yet, when when given the opportunity he made a deal with the devil to break the chains he put on himself and abandon that same family. Then when he gets the chance to obtain power by sacrificing someone he loves, he does exactly that. Then he plans to become king of a utopia free of suffering, and always remember Echo.
So then, what are Amon's motives? Is he somebody who got tired of being abandoned or unappreciated? An ends-justify-the-means idealist? Just a power-hungry hypocrite? It's hard to tease out a consistent character and ideology from him. And in a show where people wear their hearts in their decks, I think this part of why people hate him - and so does Yubel.
Yubel hates Johan because he's terrifyingly like Yubel in some ways, focused and protective and dear to Judai.** Yubel hates Amon because he can't be like Yubel at all, resenting the brother he dedicated himself to and sacrificing the person he loved for power in an empty world forever devoid of that same person.
No way Yubel can be that kind of person, right? Otherwise, what was it all for?
* To be fair, you don't know all of Yubel's backstory by the time of their final duel with Amon. However, even removing the context of their past life that duel together with Yubel!Johan vs. Hell Kaiser establishes Yubel's central motivations more coherently than they do Amon's.
** Help, I know there's been other essay segments on this topic, text and video alike. But I saw a lot of them back in early 2023 when I was mindlessly going through GX material in a haze of hyperfixation and now I've forgotten all the other good sources.
Yubel and Echo
If Yubel's parallels with Amon are about their dedication, Yubel's parallels with Echo are about who they're dedicated to. Both believe in their loved one's destiny to become a king, and take actions to make them that king.
Yubel has historical basis in that Judai is quite literally the Supreme King, bearer of the gentle darkness. To help him achieve that role, Yubel enacts a plot to break Judai until he awakens his Supreme King side. It fits neatly into their schema of things: this is how they make the person they love stronger, so that they will thrive and survive. Make Judai stronger and awaken his old power, and all will be as it was meant to be.
Echo just believes that Amon is amazing enough that he would make a better king than anyone. When the chances arises to help break his chains and give him a world to rule, Echo takes it.
...And boy does she.
Both Yubel and Echo believe their loved ones are meant to be a king. Both give their lives in support of their loved one, and become weapons wielded in their service.
No wonder Yubel was shaken by Echo's devotion remaining within Exodia for just a moment - it's not all that far from their own.
Unfortunately Yubel's only direct interaction with Echo is goading her attack on field-Yubel during the final Amon duel. Otherwise they only speak of Echo as someone used and abandoned by Amon - which in itself has potential, given Yubel's own feelings about Judai sending them away.
I think GX could definitely have explored this connection a bit more. There's space to fill here.
Judai and Amon
As noted above, Judai and Amon both have roles as kings - at least, in the eyes of their single most loyal people. Judai holds the title of Supreme King as the wielder of gentle darkness, and while not confirmed his past life sure looked like a prince. Amon simply has ambition, talent, and an ideal world in his mind.
And in operating with the ambition of kings, they both do terrible things to achieve power. Judai lays this out explicitly in the Edo vs. Amon duel:
Amon lets his need for power get in the way of his other relationships and priorities, and sacrifices the ones he loves to obtain Exodia similarly to how Judai sacrificed his friends and eventually uncountable innocents for his own goals - finding Johan, and then ruling as Supreme King. Straightforward, right?
But I think there's another parallel between the two that's a lot more interesting. Or...most of a parallel. Namely, their relationship with their other halves and the responsibility of a loyal follower who would give up anything for you, be it their life or their humanity.
What do you do when the person you love most dedicates their existence to you - to the point of throwing everything else away, even their very life?
Of course, the Judai-Yubel and Amon-Echo situations aren't exactly the same even putting aside the issue of reincarnation. (For the purposes of this essay I'm not making huge distinctions between Judai and his past life, but if you want to get into the details I've written about that previously.)
Yubel went ahead and made their sacrifice without Judai's input, and all he could do was decide how to respond. He chose to dedicate himself back to them so hard it crossed lifetimes, so hard he chose to risk his own existence for them as well in his next life.
Amon, on the other hand, is the one who proposed Echo sacrifice herself for him. Echo agreed to it, and even by the end she stood by her decision. But Amon loaded the gun and pulled the trigger.
He tries to honor her sacrifice, of course. He's always mindful of Echo's sacrifice and what it means. But in the end, he did choose to sacrifice her, ultimately using her as a pawn. Their love never trumped his own objectives.
And I think the example of Amon and Echo leads to the question: if Judai had the choice of letting Yubel become a dragon or stopping them, what would he do? When it was explicitly their will?
This is another missed opportunity, one that could have solidified the parallels neatly. But GX never asks that question, so the answer is unclear. What could have been a parallel is just kind of...askew.
Judai and Echo
Okay, I admit there isn't a lot here off the top of my head. Probably the best parallels between them are in relation to their other halves, as the people "harmed" by their villainous partners, and how they respond to that harm.
Judai rejects Yubel's torments as unwanted attention, until he remembers the past and flips to understanding why Yubel did they did and makes moves to unite the two of them forever. Echo, meanwhile, understands Amon's motives from start to end and...lets herself be sacrificed, the end.
I don't know about this one. Really, ultimately Echo is supposed to be a willing participant in her own sacrifice but in the end I still don't feel like the narrative gave her a strong sense of agency in the matter and it really weakens my attempt to write this section.
In Conclusion
Some of these connections are stronger than others for sure, but I argue that they're all there in some way or another. They're very uneven and overall I'm not entirely sure what you're meant to take from the parallels, and I wish I could give something neat and concise for this section. Instead, it's a bit messy and misshapen - hence, the trapezoid metaphor.
Still, I think there's interesting room for thought in this awkward space. I was certainly thinking about these parallels while working on the latest chapter of Need (accidental last-minute plug?) and trying to figure out exactly what the prince felt while Yubel was in the middle of dragon surgery. What must it be like, to be in these relationships of sacrificial devotion?
“Writing nonfiction is more like sculpture, a matter of shaping the research into the finished thing. Novels are like paintings, specifically watercolors. Every stroke you put down you have to go with. Of course you can rewrite, but the original strokes are still therein the texture of the thing.”
—The Paris Review Interviews, vol. I (New York: Picador, 2006), 476. Joan Didion
What advice can you give on improving handwriting and essay writing? Love your posts btw!!!💓
Lemme focus on essay writing, because essaying is sth I do all the time :’)))))))))
FIRST OF ALL, understand that writing an essay is a process. Don’t just open a word processor and start writing the essay. Doing that will make u suffer. As a process, essay writing has 3 parts: before writing, during writing, and after writing. Imma discuss each
BEFORE writing the essay
These are things u need to do prior to writing. My dudes, the key to writing an A+ essay is planning, bcoz a good essay is structured and organized.
If this is for class, go over your teacher’s instructions. These usually include the purpose of the essay, the page/word count, style guides, and, if you’re lucky, the rubrics (aka the breakdown of how your paper will be graded). Follow these instructions to the letter.
PLANNING TIME! Brainstorm, make mind maps/semantic maps, freewrite etc. Just write everything you can think of that’s related to the topic of your essay.
If you did #2 correctly then by now you should have A LOT of ideas. Time 2 narrow them down. How narrow? One sentence narrow. As in, in one sentence, what do you wanna say? Even the longest essay in history can be condensed in one sentence. This one sentence is your thesis statement. (You don’t have to get it right the first time. Try writing three statements, and choose what you like best.) See: How to write a thesis statement
DO NOT I REPEAT DO NOT START THE ESSAY WITHOUT A THESIS STATEMENT
Based on your thesis, outline the heck out of that essay. Personally, I prefer 3 level outlines. See: Thesis Statement Guide Development Tool
Don’t worry if you can’t the outline outright. That’s what research is for. Research, annotate, complete your outline.
WHILE writing the essay
BE COMFY. Find a spot where you can concentrate, grab an ergonomic chair, have some snacks and water ready.
Keep your outline on hand, but allow for strokes of genius. If you suddenly think of better arguments or examples, go ahead and use them.
Input your sources as you cite them. There is no greater suffering than looking for ur source 1 hour before the essay is due.
Think in paragraphs. Not in sentences. Paragraphs. As in, “My three main arguments can be discussed in three paragraphs, with one paragraph dedicated to each argument.” This way, the structure of your essay will be made obvious to you (super important when you’re weeding out unnecessary information).
Make sure that your paragraphs are connected to one another. Use transitional devices to smoothen the flow.
Take frequent breaks. If you have time—and you should always have time for essays—write the essay in the span of days.
AUTOSAVE
AFTER writing the essay
Don’t submit that shit the moment you type the final period. Here are things you should do instead:
GET SOME REST.
Give it a day or two before u look at ur essay again. You have to sort of distance yourself from the material to examine it objectively (although there is, of course, no such thing as complete objectivity). It’s like when you were young and you thought you wrote the BEST POEM only to read it at an older age and realize u were THE WORST. .
Check the flow of ur essay. Does one sentence follow the previous sentence logically? Do your arguments/examples/description make sense? Maybe get a friend to read the essay you wrote just to check if what you’ve written can be understood. See: Flow and Cohesion / Does my paragraph flow?
Take out irrelevant details and words. Yes, even if you wrote that sentence beautifully. Tighten your sentences. Understandability over aesthetics.
Check if you (accidentally) plagiarized. Did you cite all smart quotations? Did you forget someone in your biblio? Did you perhaps copied+pasted a block of text and forget to paraphrase? CHECK & CHECK AGAIN
Grammar check, spell check, format check.
Save.
Rename that file. If you’re like me, it would have been named sth like draftsuperfinalfinalnatalaga.docx
Submit within the deadline. Better done than perfect. :)
But wait there’s more
Tips for in class essays
How to do the essay (or how to bullshit it really well)
thank god someone got a video of toff skating between wm during the game last night because i actually thought i was going insane seeing it in person. these two are literally glued to each other trying to merge into one being to the point where it’s a joke to skate between them and send them spinning off like bowling pins. but then afterwards they don’t scatter, they’re just re-magnetized back together so fast they leave dust cloud impressions of themselves in the air and they’re back to giggling and breathing into each other’s mouths. like can we be so serious. can we have some decorum here.
