#(THEY BE ENGAGED NOW YES)

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

the fact that shakespeare was a playwright is sometimes so funny to me. just the concept of the "greatest writer of the English language" being a random 450-year-old entertainer, a 16th cent pop cultural sensation (thanks in large part to puns & dirty jokes & verbiage & a long-running appeal to commoners). and his work was made to be watched not read, but in the classroom teachers just hand us his scripts and say "that's literature"

just...imagine it's 2450 A.D. and English Lit students are regularly going into 100k debt writing postdoc theses on The Simpsons screenplays. the original animation hasn't even been preserved, it's literally just scripts and the occasional SDH subtitles.txt. they've been republished more times than the Bible

[serendipitouslyyyyyy]

listen. in theory, i know that the hobbit was published in the 1930s and lotr was published in the 1950s, but conceptually, that's never fully sunk in. people were talking about bilbo baggins while world war ii bombs were flying overhead. discussing their favorite characters merry and pippin alongside the news of the brand new polio vaccine. making jokes about mordor between fireside chats. like that's absolutely crazy to me. unreal

[jewish-sideblog]

“Antizionist Passover” literally the Haggadah calls you a wicked child if you distance yourself from our people’s struggle for statehood in the Levant. The singular and explicit point of the Maggid is to put yourself in the shoes of our ancestors, yearning to live free by our own laws in our own nation. Some of you need to renew your PJ Library subscriptions and go back over the essentials

[08-47]

it shall be cuboided soon

[treesinspace]

A big reason why the Minrathos vs Treviso "choice" feels so weird to me is because I sent 3 people to Minrathos and 3 people to Treviso. So really I didn't make a choice at all except to choose where Rook specifically should go. Why is Rook singled out as the reason the fight in one city went better than in the other, and not one of the other companions?

And that got me thinking.

Why are half the companions always just sitting around doing nothing anyway? (in-universe i mean. I know the reason is gameplay.)

In the Minrathos vs the Treviso choice, we have 2 teams working at the same time in different locations, so it is possible.

Admittedly, none of these kinds of game ever give a reason a team can only have 3-4 people in it, so we take this as a given. But like. In the previous Dragon Age games it didn't feel weird that only the PC can do these quests, and the other companions just tag along.

In Origins, the PC is the only Grey Warden willing to lead a team.

In DA2, they aren't even saving the world! Hawke is just doing that stuff as a hobby and asking their friends for help. And the friends don't sit around doing nothing when they aren't with Hawke, they have their own lives!

In Inquisition, the Inquisitor is the only one who can seal the breaches, and they even put in a gameplay mechanic where certain tasks are delegated via the War Table. (Though, as I did complain about at the time, some more tasks could have been delegated. Looking at you, collect 10 elfroot)

But in DAtV? Why the hell aren't we dividing up all that work, all those quests? The companions in the Lighthouse have fuckall to do except cook and read! They could be out there!

Now, I'm not saying they SHOULD be out there, that would be ridiculous, gameplay-wise. But uhhh I WOULD appreciate it if the writing gave me a reason why they aren't. What makes Rook so special anyway??

[moonwoodhollow]

that's all I have for now for the interior. starting with the kitchen, as always.

[i-dreamed-i-had-a-son]

Broke (2016): BBC Sherlock is a phenomenal piece of media and anything that seems like a flaw just hasn't been fully explored yet

Woke (2020): BBC Sherlock is an incredibly flawed series run by an egotistical writer, it never deserved the hype and is actively bad on so many fronts (especially representation)

Bespoke (2024): BBC Sherlock is flawed and bogged down by increasingly poor writing, which many fans refused to see while it was airing, leading to hugely misplaced expectations (particularly for the final series), AND it has the seeds of some compelling characterizations and portrayals, some genuinely solid performances, and touches--albeit imperfectly--on complexities that are still being discussed today (particularly as it relates to the relationship between Sherlock and John). The huge cultural impact of the show has created a massive pendulum effect in its public perception, leading to most people today remembering a caricature of the show (whether positive or negative) rather than appreciating its nuanced merits and failings...that being said Season 4 sucked

[matchalovertrait]

Isabela Campos is another successful lawyer, but she plays a very different game. Antonio has only been in the courtroom with her once, but that was enough for her to become his enemy. So, he's not sure what exactly she'll do. He just knows it's not good.

Transcript

ANTONIO: We’ll wait for the rest of the team in the meeting room.

DANIELA: Yeah it was starting to feel crowded outside! It’s nice that Dulce has that many loved ones, though.

ANTONIO: It is sweet.

ANTONIO: Fuck...

DANIELA: What happened???

[Antonio and Daniela whisper.]

ANTONIO: What is she doing here?

DANIELA: Isabela? I thought we were up against another lawyer.

[Antonio and Daniela whisper.]

DANIELA: What do we do? She plays dirty. We didn’t expect her.

ANTONIO: Don’t engage with them. Act normal.

[Antonio and Daniela whisper.]

ANTONIO: Part of their plan must be to throw us off. They want us to panic and change our strategy.

ISABELA: Well, if it isn’t Antonio Romero and his poor excuse of a paralegal.

ANTONIO: We’re not interested in chit-chatting.

ISABELA: Don’t be like that. Rivalry is supposed to be playful fun, is it not?

[Isabela and Caruso forcefully make their way towards them.]

ISABELA: Why are you standing in front of her like that? We’re not going to do anything.

CARUSO: Say, how has Alegr��a been? Knowing her, she’s probably all over you, huh? She loves bad ideas like those.

ANTONIO: That would be highly unprofessional and a violation of the legal ethics. She is my client and nothing more. Please refrain from saying such nonsense.

ISABELA: I hope that’s true for your sake. It’d be a shame if your license got revoked for sleeping with a client. Don’t let anybody find out!

DANIELA: Where’s your paralegal anyway? Or did they quit because nobody can stand working with you?

ISABELA: Honey, I don’t need one. I can do it all on my own. Remember, I didn’t have one when I absolutely crushed Antonio in that one case.

ANTONIO: If you can “do it all alone”, go ahead and spare the poor soul who put the ring on your finger.

[Dulce walks in and overhears.]

ISABELA: [Chuckles] You can’t offend me. Come along, Caruso. I think we are done here.

CARUSO: We’ll see you inside.

DULCE: Why did he comment on the ring? Have they dated before?

ANTONIO: He found my arch nemesis. How does he keep discovering such information?

DANIELA: He probably uses a private investigator. The same one who he hired to find his mom.

[moeblob]

Sorry for liking to stick Alear in shirts calling them old.

[thestalwartheart]

Champagne tastes a lot like blood I can not know how I'm gonna heal

RADI00Q: 31 SONGS FOR BOND AND Q SONG 10: Catherine Wheel - The Whitlams (covered by Megan Washington and the Sydney Symphony Orchestra)

[violentdelightshavevioletends]

- But let's just ignore that like we usually do. - Seems to be working out for us.

[1moreoffkeyanthem]

In case we needed more proof of me not beating the Stan Marsh allegations:

How did my fiancé get me to turn around so he could get down on one knee without me noticing? He told me there was a big dog across the street. Yes it worked.

[questionthedompler]

hey so guess whos getting married

no date yet so dont ask

i am beside myself rn guys

[renxamamiya]

Fire Emblem Engage [3/??]

[gofancyninjaworld]

Garou, punishment, and penalties

One of the things that has surprised and outraged a lot of readers about the end of the Monster Association arc in the manga has been Garou's apparent rehabilitation. Exile? No! The Hero Association has let him go, he's gotten fined for dining-and-dashing, has to say sorry to the heroes he beat up, and do some community service. To their minds, Garou is 'getting away with it', and it feels most unjust. Not to mention that there's a sense of frustrated closure.

So, is Garou getting off lightly?

Well, we can't begin to answer this question without some clarity in what we're discussing. There are two related but very different issues here and we need to disambiguate them.

Punishment

I know that this is a word that is very triggering to some people, but there's nothing for it. I'm sorry about that but I need this word. I'm talking about punishment in its most technical Skinnerian sense. Now Skinner boxes are rather narrow places but they're very useful.

Punishment in the most strict behaviourist sense of the term means nothing more than some contingency that decreases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated [1]. It says nothing about it being pleasant or unpleasant and something is only a punisher if the individual is less likely to do whatever led to that outcome again.

Punishment is all around us. It's not necessarily linked with INTENTIONALITY. For example, if you neglect to check the weather forecast, walk out without a coat and umbrella, and end up miserable and wet, you're less likely to do so again. Was the rain out to punish you? Of course not! You perceived going out without checking the weather forecast and so knowing whether to take a coat and umbrella to have led to an unacceptable outcome, and so you check before you leave.

We thus come to a key point: what constitutes a punishing experience is necessarily individual and context-dependent. There are some experiences that are almost universally seen as intolerable and to be avoided : for example, the proportion of people who will knowingly pee on an electric fence is small indeed. But take an opportunity to work part of a weekend for a modest sum, say $200, at the cost of social time. For a person to whom this money is helpful, it's rewarding, and forgoing time with friends is a price worth paying. For a person to whom it doesn't make much difference, doing that work would be punishing in itself, and losing the opportunity to socialise would be doubly punishing.

Interestingly, what Garou considered reinforcing vs. punishing is nearly counter-intuitive to observe. He relished the challenge. Heck, being beaten up meant that there was something that he had yet to learn and overcome -- which was powerfully reinforcing to him. Even though, in the moment, he could feel fear, frustration, anger, pain, and tiredness, the reward of learning, overcoming, and growing stronger was worth every inch of risk.

...yes, in the end he took it to grotesque and cruel levels

On the other hand, the idea of hitting someone who wouldn't or couldn't fight back was profoundly punishing to Garou. It made him feel like a bully, which was something he never wanted to feel like, and he sought to avoid it.

Even before his run-in with Darkshine, hitting someone defenceless made him feel ill.

Punishment is in the eyes of the beholder. A world without punishment is a world without preference.

Penalty

There are many related definitions of penalty. Let's go with this one for its relative comprehensiveness: "the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense." [2]

Unlike punishment, penalty is a social construct. There is ALWAYS INTENTIONALITY. You can punish yourself but you cannot penalise yourself: someone has to impose it as a result of your breaking some agreed-on set of rules.

Penalty is an essential part of a functional social group. Even if you call it other names, it springs up spontaneously and the only question is in how well it is managed. For example, say in an online club, one member says something that another member finds insensitive, and the latter calls the former out on it. If the offender pays the appropriate social penalty of acknowledging the hurt they caused and apologising right away, it's quickly water under the bridge and peace is restored. If they don't repeat the offence, the social bond of the club is strengthened, as it affirms that 'hey, this is not a place where we tolerate rudeness to each other.' On the other hand, let the offender deny that they caused harm and even double down, and, unless some stronger penalty is applied by the group, the club can quickly find itself in trouble.

The reason these two ideas are often conflated is that the major intention of penalty is to punish. In a perfect world, penalty and punishment would overlap. That they frequently don't is the subject of many, many studies and books, keeps therapists in business, and nurtures many a scholar through their entire lives. Whether in being so light that it's a cost of doing business (like a $5 penalty ticket for a $20 regular ticket), or so heavy that it's destructive to the offender and is more intended to scare others than to help, or is inappropriate to the offense, or is lop-sidedly applied, or is more a way of excluding a 'weird' person than in restoring any sense of justice, you name it, there's myriad ways in which it goes awry. And yet, it exists. It cannot help but exist in a social world, and it is necessary.

So, armed with these two concepts, let's break the question of whether Garou has gotten away lightly into two components.

Question 1: Has Garou been appropriately punished?

Remember, it is behaviour that is punished. So, has Garou's behaviour changed? Partially!

He has absolutely no interest whatsoever in becoming a monster. Doesn't even think of monsters positively any longer.

The ghost of his future self has come back to tell him to desist from his aim of gaining ultimate power, so that aspect of his behaviour has been effectively punished.

So too have his hero-hunting activities. He isn't hunting heroes any longer, and if he wants to gain skills from matching his strengths against theirs, he intends to ask for a spar, like a decent person.

Ah, many 'screw story, just show me cool fights' fans are drooling over this prospect.

However, he still thinks he's right. He has not renounced the idea of becoming an indomitable force who can impose peace. And that could be trouble.

Question 2: Has Garou been appropriately penalised?

Again, the answer is mixed. Legally, yes. He has been ordered to make the restauranteur he robbed whole. He's been remanded into the care of Bang, who is overseeing his court-ordered work programme -- remember, even though he's eighteen, in this world, he's still a minor. He has (or is in the process of) apologised to the heroes he beat up.

Pragmatically, it makes sense. There isn't a prison that can hold him if he wants out. While going around beating up heroes was an inexcusably shitty thing to do, there are mitigating circumstances to be considered, and he doesn't have a long criminal record, plus he is young. Having him under the care of someone he respects -- and who is strong enough to *make* him stop if need be -- and having him directly apologise to or make whole those he wronged is the least risky way to deal with penalising a scarily overpowered individual.

Are there people who would like to have seen greater penalties imposed on Garou? Hell yeah, you'd better believe it. But they're not going to get it. They'll have to make their peace with it. Yes, Bang advocating for him has meant that Garou hasn't been sanctioned anywhere near as harshly as he might be. But it's also true that Bang advising him is why he's not a fugitive from justice and is actively looking to right his wrongs, however partial that might be.

Where there's going to be hell to pay is if Bang enacts his plan of introducing Garou to the HA as his replacement. The HA *will totally take Garou* -- as Sicchi says, they can't afford not to. But boy, oh boy, will there be trouble.

So after all that talk, what am I concluding? Yes, he is getting off a bit lightly but we have to start somewhere. It's a real credit to Garou that he's been willing to engage with the process of reforming himself.

References

[1] While the idea comes from Skinner's experimentation, this particular definition is the Azrin/Holz one, from Azrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 213–270). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

[2] definition 1 in: the Merriam-Webster online dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penalty. Accessed 26-Aug-2024.

[deservedgrace]

one of the more frustrating aspects of ex evangelical/ex cult stuff for me personally is how hard it is to talk about. and part of that is the emotional side of it, yeah it's a shitload of cumulative and compounding trauma and trauma is hard to talk about sometimes. but it's not always hard to talk about, or at least equally hard to talk about, and the thing that's honestly more frustrating to me about that is how... extensive it is, how impossible it is to give an accurate picture of what it was like, especially succinctly. there are so many things that you need context for. there's so much that doesn't really sound that bad unless you have other information. so much was normalized to me that i have a hard time knowing what's actually "normal" and what's "yikes" to other people because i simply don't always have the context for "normal". there's so much that's normalized in society and churches that gets dismissed as "normal" when it really, really shouldn't be. there's so much i just don't remember because it slipped out of my brain the same as "normal" unimportant memories because my brain didn't process it as abuse or traumatic at the time due to that lack of context of what "normal" is; it was normal to me and just what people did and how people acted and what people said. and the thing that happens is all of this compiles into me sounding like i'm exaggerating and whining about a "normal church experience" because it's just so impossible to describe how all-encompassing being in a cult is if you don't have that experience.