#I don't really think of it as critical but some people might???

[spiderbitesandvampirevenom]

I mean, I think you partially answered your own question there. Because you're right, If we treat TMA/TME as a binary it can't include intersex issues. And you're right, it is often applied without any consideration towards intersex issues. However, my point with the original post is that TMA/TME isn't and shouldn't be a binary.

First of all, lets talk real quick about the terms themselves. Transmisogyny Affected/Exempt. These are deceptively simple labels, and I think that's where a lot of the confusion comes up for people. Transmisogyny can refer to specific interpersonal acts, but it's also first and foremost a term describing the societal system that is designed to oppress transfems, i.e. people who were Assigned Male At Birth and no longer identify with that. And at a systemic level, that is the deciding factor. Transmisogyny picks its targets based on that assignment at birth. Individually, people who were not AMAB may find themselves the target of interpersonal transmisogyny, just as any individual can be mistakenly targeted by bigotry that doesn't apply to them. I get misdirected anti-hispanic shit thrown at me all the time, it doesn't make me hispanic. Likewise, being subjected to transmisogyny as someone who was AFAB does not necessarily make one TMA.

You're right, though, being intersex means you're not necessarily going to fall neatly into either a TMA or a TME bucket. Which means unfortunately when perisex people get to spend some time adjusting to the concept in Transmisogyny 1001: Transfemininity for Babies, you've been forced to skip ahead a bit to Transmisogyny 2001: Critical Thinking & Intersectionality. I don't know you or anything about you, so I'm not gonna talk too specifically here, I'm just trying to give you the lead to make your own analysis. SO. Here we go.

On some issues, you might be reasonably considered affected by transmisogyny. Depending on where you live and how legislation is written, you might find yourself targeted by transmisogynistic legislation. On many issues, however, as someone who was AFAB, you will find you are not going to be affected systemically by those issues. Because Transmisogyny's primary target is (primarily perisex) people who were AMAB and are now transfem. Regardless of whether or not you're TMA/TME though, this overlap in the treatment of transfem people and intersex people means we get to do something really cool called Intersectionality, where we focus on discussing the shared problems our communities face. Like personally, I don't particularly care whether or not you're TMA/TME. The fact that we have shared experiences matters more than the labels at that point. Transmisogyny and Intersexism have very similar playbooks and a lot of the time, one is going to include some level of the other. I'd rather discuss the intersection of our experiences than try to delineate where one starts and the other ends.

you folks realise TME isnt just a new synonym for transmasc right. like you realize when trans women are talking about TransMisogyny Exempt Individuals that includes, like, for example, cis men and women, right?? if you're gonna throw a fit over TMA/TME being "a new binary" i think you are a) purposefully misrepresenting these terms for the sake of delegitimizing them or b) being taken advantage of by those who do so. check your transmisogyny and do better lmao.

[peppermintquartz]

I'm feeling bitchily critical today so. Let's get critical.

Reasons why Season 8 of 911 (so far) sucks:

Bobby and Athena are aimless

They have no house. The logical development is for them to look for one, one for their future. That is theirs. Where are the house hunting woes? The disageeements and compromises? Are they ever going to have a chance to find a place they both love? Or build one, even?

Athena's job description is all over the place

She's giving school talks. She's conducting traffic stops. She's escorting a prisoner across state lines. She is mentoring new officers. She's a goddamn Sergeant but what is her job scope? Every single thing requiring the presence of police, apparently!

Hen and Karen have little direction for growth

The Mara adoption issue could have brought out more of their relationship, developed them in terms of relying on each other through a difficult time. The storyline with Ortiz could have really delved into the struggles of the foster care system, and how Hen and Karen broke rules designed to protect the kids. (Seriously, if a child is removed from a foster family, it's logical not allowing the foster parents to meet the child that was removed for the safety of the child). Where was the appeal to Ortiz as a mother? Where was the struggle? Where is the tension between the Wilsons and the Hans? Instead there was a Deux Ex Gerrard. And I am not even gonna start on the whole "why didn't you take leave for Halloween" shit, that stuff should have been settled when Denny was a baby. What are their next steps? Same old same old?

Gerrard is a joke

An established bigot and racist returns. He could have been a great way to show how the 118 has grown beyond him and his bullying. Instead they're cowed by him, and lets him yell at Buck? Whatever happened to the "who cares" courage in Season 7? And he gets the reward of his dream job?

Eddie is still not healed

He emotionally cheated on his girlfriend with his dead wife's doppelganger. Has he even processed what that actually means? No! His son moved to Texas. Has he coped with the loneliness in his house? Who knows? Certainly not the audience, since we don't see him go to therapy or, hell, have a full breakdown! He confides in people who aren't his friends, let alone his so-called best friend! Bobby gave him a prayer book but we don't even hear Eddie rage at a God who keeps putting devastation and challenges in his way. What wa the point of the prayer book then? He just danced in his underwear and somehow that made him smile and now he's moving across the country and, what, giving up on his home and his job? Is that really healing, Edmundo Díaz? Or are you just running from the problem again?

Chimney has no internal or external motivation

He was providing for Mara for a few months. Was he stressed about it? Did he think about seeking a promotion for a higher salary? Also, he is an immigrant. Does that influence how he teaches Jee? Has he and Maddie, white suburban raised Maddie, ever discussed the potential problems Jee might face? Or whether they wanna include some Korean culture in Jee's education, since they gave her a Korean name? Does he ever think about any of these issues? Is he at all conflicted? What does Chimney want?

Maddie

She was the one who wanted to meet Tommy. Has she done so outside of the wedding? What was her opinion of him? Is Maddie content to stay in Dispatch in the exact same position? Has she any career ambition? And about Jee: does she never think about the Korean part of Jee? Connecting to her own culture? Learning Korean, maybe? That would have been interesting because perhaps she wants her daughter to connect to that part of her roots but Chimney doesn't, for his own reasons. Also, if she wants to have a second kid, why didn't she discuss it with Chimney outright before the pregnancy? Was she not taking the pill? Were they careless again? What would she do if Chimney didn't want a second child? Abort? Given how the first pregnancy was traumatic for the whole family, including her brother, this development is showing her to be pretty self-centered, frankly. I don't know this Maddie. She's not the same one that gave Buck her Jeep to escape, knowing that she'll be hurt by an abusive husband.

Brad

Why is airtime devoted to a character that is barely connected to the 118? What is the reason behind giving him so much focus? Is he supposed to quit acting and become a firefighter or something? What is the rationale for his existence?

.

.

And I haven't even touched on Buck or Tommy.

[minnlahzz]

amethio, silver x hex maniac reader.

requested

amethio and silver! oreo and jalapeño duo (this is separated.) sorry for the big wait, school is biting my toes. uhh silvers is very short, because I feel like ive mentioned most of the things silver would do in other fics. I don't wanna seem repetitive or uncreative!

— AMETHIO

amethio would initially be unsure what to make of you. your eerie aura and cryptic way of speaking would intrigue him, but he’d be cautious. he’s logical, so he’d view what you do as something he needs to understand rather than dismiss, because every person is different why judge them. he’d probably think, "are they like this all the time?" when you casually mention something spooky like the “ghosts watching over” him.

amethio’s edgy demeanor and your crazy words would balance each other out. he’d act as the grounded counterpart to your whimsical nature, often giving you a deadpan look when you go off on a supernatural tangent.

“amethio, the spirit (random gengar) says this battle will be tough.”

“the spirit is stating the obvious.”

your comments often catch him off guard, not because he gets scared of it. it's just becuse you just say it so randomly it's kind of concerning, leading to some amusing exchanges.

“The ghosts approve of you, amethio.”

“good to know. now, tell them to get out out of my way.”

your unpredictability often throws him off balance. whether it’s your cryptic compliments (“the spirits find you quite handsome today”) or your sudden affection, he finds himself flustered more often than he’d like to admit.

your spooky vibe complements his calm and calculated style perfectly. he’d use your unnerving presence to throw off opponents while he plans a precise attack. he might even ask you for “spiritual advice” during critical missions, though you’re never quite sure if he’s joking or went insane.

he isn't really phased from ghosts, neither is his pokemon. ceruledge is one of the few pokémon that isn’t fazed by your team. it often stands protectively between amethio and your more mischievous Pokémon like (for example) misdreavus, who enjoys pranking people by floating off with their belongings. ceruledge gets really paranoid and assumes all your ghosts are evil at first.

amethio never disregards your interests, and tries his best help you enjoy them, even if he's not a fan of it himself.

— SILVER

silver is honestly pretty game with whatever crazy stuff you do, he didn't stop loving you after you did questionable things in order to see ghosts (he'd be apart of it anyway.)

first time meeting you silver already felt discomfort/concern. (not negative) he’d wonder if you had some hidden agenda, but over time, he’d notice how kind and sincere you are, even with your random outbursts, which would ease his initial distrust.

silver reluctantly tags along when you explore spooky ruins or abandoned buildings to “connect with spirits.” he’d grumble about how impractical it is, but goes anyway. (his honchkrow becomes your flashlight during these adventures.)

your spooky jokes and ghostly references catch him off guard, but he grows to enjoy your sense of humor. he won’t laugh out loud, but the corner of his mouth quirks up when you say something particularly clever. silver might even use them too, but to an extent. gold never understand the jokes...

when travelling on a mission sent by professor oak by the dex holders (gold, and crys mostly) he makes sure to find and pick up eerie trinkets and paranormal items to give to you on his return. he'd just silently sneak them in his pocket without the other two knowing, sometimes what he does though leads to a bigger problem.

"hey silver what are you doing! this place is completely abandoned don't touch that!" crys silently yelled (if you get it) in the corner.

silver unresponsive, shrugs and picks it up... suddenly a locked door opens "WHAT DID YOU DO?" gold yelled from the other room, echoing through the entire building.

"silver you pay for my life insurance."

"it's just another room, there might be something important we could give to professor oak there. you guys are just overreacting."

"GHOST!"

silver knows alot of paranormal information because of you, and it definitely saved the 3 idiots lifes maybe twice. lesson learned: don't go to abandoned haunted building, (unless you're a hex maniac the ghosts are pretty cool with you.)

it's not just him that gives the other trinkets, it's also vice-versa! you gift silver supposedly "haunted" charms, he's skeptical but carries it around anyway. when he wins a tough match, you proudly point at the many trinkets you gave him.

"the spirits were with you, horray!" you say celebrating.

"or maybe it was my training, but you know that works too."

silver has a beef with your pokemon, doesn't matter which he hates them and they hate him. (don't worry though) your pokemon like taunting him and whenever he complains, you brush it off as them bonding together.

“tell your pokémon to stop stealing my items,” he says, holding up a poké ball with a stone faced expression.

“it’s just trying to bond with you!” you reply.

“...bond less.”

[albinokittens300]

!Spoilers Under The Cut!

Last critical leaning post, but warning I am gonna boarderline vent here. Hopefully after this I can take up enjoying the vagueness the ending left us with but. Still gotta get this out.

Gonna say it: I swear they just were to scared to give Jinx a positive ending. Like they had such a perfect set up for it and plain and simple the writers were not brave enough to give her the ending she should have gotten.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this idea of her running away is a good ending. It's a terrible one, because it doesn't allow her to heal anything. It allows her to run away from what she needs to heal. It's avoidance not growth. Guess I can be happy she wasn't really dead but that's kinda the most positive thing I can say about her exiling herself by leaving. And this being what is probably a sacrifice for Vi's happyness when it also takes her away from whatever is very clearly being built between her and Ekko? Again. That's not good in my opinion. It's going backwards for her. Chooseing things based on what someone else wants, not herself.

And let me be clear: leaving behind the two people she loves and has a connection with? Is completely out of character for her.

So unless it is intentionally meant to be a short lived absence, which we have nothing inplying that to be the case, I think her leaving is only a few points better than her actually dieing.

It would have made so much more sense to show her coming back and joinning the Firelights and the others who were fighting with them. Her sacrifice, than her walking in amongst a group of Zaunites and Ekko noticing her and a laugh as she plays with him for a minute. It's an open ended thing- we don't know if she really is fully joinning them, how she feels about the new situation between the cities, or Vi- but she is there and faceing the new.

THAT would be so many worlds better than her just being assumed dead and leaving her life completely behind. Because doing that doesn't break the cycle of killing the way Silco was encourageing her to do- it just prevents her from having to make any changes.

Whew. Okay. There, off my chest.

I do have a whole post like this about Episode 7 that I might get the heart up to actually post. Though, I almost refuse just on grounds so many Timebomb fans are loving and enjoying it. The last thing I want to do is tear it down, even if I haveing a harder time of it.

But hopefully with this out I can play with some of the freedom this ending did bless us with. If nothing else, I can have any ending I want because they just let Jinx fly off.

[wasabiburger]

This is why I enjoy introducing people to Dungeon Crawl Classics level 0 funnels. Getting tired and uncomfortable with frontier justice? Well how about you try some ethical, locally sourced mob justice!

Jokes aside, I do think this falls into that issue that exists across entertainment mediums that I find really frustrating. People get defensive about others criticizing content they enjoy for some of the things that might be interesting to consider such as how a specific dumb "turn your brain off" action movie sure seems to still have an insane amount of scenes making the military look cool. Does it mean you're not allowed to enjoy it? No, and you can continue not analyzing or looking into why and how those scenes exist.

I get that there is a time and place to bring up aspects of media that might make the people engaging in media with you uncomfortable but I think a big reason these aspects don't get addressed as much is purely because the defensiveness and discomfort often seems to take priority as socially acceptable with statements "it's not that big of a deal" or "well I guess I can't enjoy anything" and "yeah well x media you like does that too" instead of discussing it (again, within whatever space and time isn't just somebody ignoring all social cues completely).

You're allowed to just kill orcs and take their gold and not think about it and just have a lot of fun without that being mutually exclusive with thinking about the story, world and characters in this medium you engage with for 4 hours every Friday night.

So there is a pretty clear shift in playstyle between TSR D&D and WotC D&D: for better and for worse, D&D 3e introduced the idea of encounter balance, de-emphasized mechanics that had previously encouraged the GM to think of the monsters as real living creatures (reaction rolls, morale, etc.), and it had the effect of making D&D a much more combat-focused game. D&D has always been a game that's opinionated about combat, it's basically the most expressive and detailed form of play regardless of edition, but combat in the TSR editions was not exactly zoomed in and tactical. The WotC editions purposefully made combat zoomed in, granular, and tactical.

And this has had an effect on playstyle: since combat is now the main form of player expression what players actually want is for their characters to get into combat. Because combat is the most fun part of the game. But the game has also changed from the largely amoral dungeon-crawling game into a game of fantasy heroics (even though a lot of the trappings of the amoral dungeon-crawling still remain, which contributes to the dissonance), so you can't just have the player characters going into combat for the sake of it. That would frame the player characters as kind of Fucked Up, and we can't have that in our supposedly heroic fantasy.

What you end up with is a variety of contrivances like "they're bandits," "they're cultists," or, my all-time favorite, "they attacked first" to make the action seem morally justifiable, even though gameplay is still motivated by a desire to fight. The monsters fight to the death and, importantly, can often not be reasoned and negotiated with, partly because combat is supposed to be the fun, engaging part everyone is here to do, but also because if they actually acted like reasonable people it could cause dissonance with the whole "the player characters are the goodest heroes."

As my friend @tenleaguesbeneath once called it: what is actually going on is that the player characters are hunting people and monsters who have been programmed to fight to the death and never negotiate for sport, while justifying it as self-defence.

It's a simple power fantasy, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Sometimes you want to play a morally uncomplicated game about killing guys with cool magic swords. But I think it's also fun to think about what the specific types of monsters players end up fighting reveals about Society the invisible, unexamined ideology lying under the surface that the designers of even modern D&D have failed to examine. And to me it often reads like a frontier justice fantasy. None of that is to detract from anyone's joy of the game, and for me it's just fun to think about and post about this stuff while Still Enjoying the Game, but if someone expressing that opinion makes you feel uncomfortable, why? That's pretty silly imo.

[isthatacalzone]

me: *seeing people yell about how they did Glintshore & Percy's death in the show*

also me: ..................anyway

[brjeauregard]

I've decided that I'm not over the "Orym is a manipulator and turning into a villain" takes yet so I'm going to apply that same logic to all of the Bell's Hells

Chetney: Losing control and attacking the party then turning around and being their friend and expecting that friendship in return is manipulative and abusive. Plus the trial he went through to harness the wolf was all about attacking them, how can they possible trust him after that. Not to mention attacking that one shop keeper for no reason and putting the party in further danger because she sent a bounty hunter after him. Very selfish behavior.

FCG: By continuously pushing his view on religion and the Changebringer on the party after they've made it clear they have no interest, FCG makes it clear that he's only thinking of himself. If they really cared about the party then they would respect their view on the gods. It's also very manipulative to try and convince the party that everything is a sign from the Changebringer, especially after they've disagreed multiple times.

Imogen: Defending the Ruby Vanguard and Liliana in front of Laudna, Fearne, and Orym was pretty fucked up. She clearly doesn't care about their trauma and is only thinking about how the red moon situation can benefit her.

Fearne: Stealing from both the party and NPCs puts everyone in danger, but she only thinks about the momentary happiness she gets from it. Ignoring the party when they tell her to not rush in to a situation or lie to someone for no reason shows her clear disregard for their wellbeing.

Ashton: They used party resources to upgrade their weapon without telling the rest of the group. What if someone else wanted to use the immovable rod? Plus the crystals on the end of the hammer could actually backfire and harm the party. It was selfish of him to do so and shows that they only care about what he can get from the group.

Laudna: When the party reunited all Laudna did was complain about her experience in Issylra and made the other group feel guilty about not suffering as much. FCG especially found new joy and a reason to live, but they felt like they couldn't talk about it in front of Laudna. Sure her feelings are valid but she should have thought about the other's feelings before trauma dumping.

See how ridiculous these all sound? It's so easy to twist any character choice in a way that fits your narrative. Orym has been open with the party since the beginning that he's been looking for the people for killed his husband and father for 6 years. Now that he finally has a lead and a way to bring them to justice, he asked the rest of the party to help and they all agreed. He's not manipulating them, he's been clear about his goals since the beginning and the party are all adults who are capable of disagreeing and not helping him.

[katerinaaqu]

Yeah and is indeed used when source is hard to be traced or if the source is unknown or low-key unreliable and yet the story is too juicy not to include to the narrative or linked to different versions.

Yeah I have already mentioned that to my initial response too that we cannot be sure that this absolutely isn't part of it given how the majority of texts are gone but I by n large compare not only the sources and their chronology but also artistic representations of the ancient Greeks themselves. As for the Nostoi maybe it is not a hundred percent the fault of the historiographers but rather the traditions that enriched the original myth from the areas themselves. Or of writers before them like Hesiod who writes at the same period as Homer (potentially a bit later) and he gives his own version of stories (see for example his take on Calypso) so in one way the takes they have to Nostoi might as well appear so because of the local traditions already piling up. Either way yes as I mentioned the Palladium seems similarly a later adittion or a type of spoken legend that somehow got incorporated to the people's minds in regards to the story or gained popularity because of its juicy features (see how in modern day and age we hear more people talk about the made up story of Medusa by Ovid than others)

Well according to Conon's version of the story or to my belief his creation, the term "ανάγκη" indeed stands for Diomedes as I mention to my post, overlooking the betrayal of Odysseus and not kill him personally or hand him over for trial because he was thinking the greater good of the Greeks and he knew they needed Odysseus to achieve their goal.

I would disagree in a few parts. For example Neoptolemus being the killer of Astyanax. Like I said most pieces of art from classical greece depict Neoptolemus killing both Priam and the baby not to mention it seems to fit on Andromache's prediction/fear in the Iliad when she said someone would try to kill her baby as revenge for someone's kin he killed. Patroclus was Achilles's cousin so he was related to Neoptolemus or consequently how Achilles died because he took the decision to fight Hector so in a way indirectly Hector killed Achilles who is Neoptolemus's kin. Seems like Little Iliad is more accurate than Iliou Persis on that matter given how many ancient pieces agree with that version of the Epic Cycle. The retrieving of Philoctetes by Diomedes is also named by others. Usually it involves Odysseus and Diomedes sailing together and then Diomedes retrieve them. It seems that Sophocles is one of the exceptions mentioning Neoptolemus being the one to retrieve him. As for the mutilation of Paris and all in general Little Iliad deals with different aspects than the other Epic Cycle and since both that and Iliou Persis are lost is hard to pinpoint which is really a contradiction to the Epic Cycle and which is not and in many cases art doesn't help much either.

Well philosophers mostly criticized Cypraea as a "plain state of events than a story". Don't remember the same criticism being made for Little Iliad so I'll take your word for it. But in general rule every ancient writer criticizes something based on their liking of storytelling. And yeah it is not. Scholia by n large are done by much later sources and yeah they often include personal bias, misunderstanding or deliberate fabrication but so far the earliest sources I can find to this are Roman times sources who also seem to place the scene as you said in Little Iliad but nothing concrete can come out of it (which again makes me look some answers to art instead to fill in the gaps and so far as I said most of the artistic representations I see do not seem to imply the hatred between the characters as described by Conon but again of course is hard to say with absolute certainty given how the text is lost.

Yes and that helps crystallize certain legends as well. Haha yeah Eurypedes basically creates some characters as his almost antagonists and still gives them some credibility and then he goes to Odysseus and basically is like "and then there is this asshole" haha it seems indeed he had something with him hahaha and let's face it he wasn't alone. Even Menelaus was depicted in a more negative light but he was made more sympathetic.

Well we can also say that "Odysseus is portrayed negatively in athenean media" basically we have most samples from Athens as well given how most plays we have were created in Athens so that played its part too. Which is another reason why the negative view of Odysseus seems to monopolize the greek literature of classical era.

Heyo!

I don't know how exactly to phrase this but I was wondering if you know anything about Odysseus trying/planing to kill Diomedes while they were stealing the Palladium. I have heard some people say that Odysseus did try to kill Diomedes while doing so but Diomedes noticed him so Odysseus stopped.

This feels so strange to me as Odysseus and Diomedes aren’t antagonistic in the Illiad and Diomedes is loved by Athena like Odysseus so betraying him, especially for hubris, seems like a good way to end up on Athena's bad side.

Also the translated summaries of Little Illiad I know don't mention it either but I know those translations can be missing out context. I suspect the Odysseus Betrayal is a "later adition" to the Epic Cycle but I am not that confident on that opinion.

Yes absolutely and I understand completely what you say. That is because the Palladium Heist betrayal story was peobably not part of the original epic cycle but rather a later adittion. More specifically through the work called Bibliotheca by Photius I, the ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinopole in 9th century seems to be mentioning in his work a Roman mythographer named Conon.

Conon lived and created during the times of Augustus. It seems that he is one of the oldest if not the oldest mythographer to ever mention this story. So the story quoted by Photius goes as such;

Basically after the revelation of Helen's Diomedes and Odysseus enter the city. Odysseus helps Diomedes on his shoulders so that he could climb but when he reaches out his hand Diomedes doesn't take him in and goes for the Palladium himself. When he comes back apparently Odysseus asks him on it and, according to Photius who quotes Conon, Diomedes "knows his cunning" and says that he didn't find it. That a spirit stole it and that he has another one. Odysseus realizes he is lying so he eventually draws his sword to kill Diomedes and take the Palladium to the Greeks himself. Apparently as he goes to stab Diomedes in the back, his sword casts a shadow by the moonlight or the glint of the weapon, Diomedes sees it and deflects him. He draws his own sword and threatens Odysseus with it wishing to "punish him for his cowardice" but eventually he decides otherwise (arguably knowing that the war needs him) and thus he drives him back to the camp while hitting him on his back with the flat of his sword. And according to Photius this is what gave the famous phrase to Greek language διομήδεια ανάγκη (Diomedes Need) which basically means "do something unpleasant out of necessity for the greater good"

So as you see the story does seem pretty bizarre. First it implies mutual distrust and rivalry between the homeric heroes for Diomedes doesn't take Odysseus in the temple, Odysseus asks him on the Palladium obviously with intention to steal it and Diomedes lying to him and of course the actual act. For starters Odysseus ready to kill Diomedes for the sakes of fame (while he literally saves his life in the Iliad) and not only that, be greedy and stupid enough to hold a sword to the moonlight. So it holds many contradictions to the entirety of Epic Cycle even Iliou Persis which also shows a more unpleasant side of Odysseus.

My guess is that the story is mostly linked to traditions of later years especially Roman sources and is not directly linked to the Epic Cycle. Even art of later years doesn't depict the Palladium Heist as a negative aura between the two heroes. If anything they seem to be cooperating just fine. And as I said this myth as told by Conon shows BOTH Diomedes and Odysseus as rivals and equally antagonizing and deceiving each other which doesn't usually appear to the Epic Cycle. Although of course we cannot be 100% sure given how the Epic Cycle is lost, it seems to me more like a roman legend that usually depict Greek heroes of Troy in general and Odysseus in particular, in the most negative light possible given how Odysseus is known for taking Troy, the mythical city of origin to the Romans (given how Aeneas who barely escapes with his life from Troy is the ancestor of the founders of Rome)

I hope this answers your question; to summarize it seems to me that this story of the Palladium Heist has as much connection to the Epic Cycle as Ovid has to Medusa legend; seems more like a version either created or told by Conon based on traditions of his time and the general anti-Odysseus climate.

[pa-pa-plasma]

kind of frustrating that people took "fat does not equal unhealthy" to mean "fat is not unhealthy." sometimes being obese IS unhealthy & excess fat can cause a lot of problems. ignoring health issues isn't progressive. real "oranges kill people with depression" moment

[autumnrory]

i've been going into the liam tag from time to time the last year where both his fans and people who hated him were Weird about him well before there were any allegations so i would get curious, i don't even remember what started it (maybe it was merely looking for photos that update accounts wouldn't post), but i normally try to avoid going into anything but edit tags for people i enjoy bc there are so many nonsense takes

and of course happening to go through today before the news broke bc i wanted to see what was being said about the abuse as i've only gotten bits on twitter and of course there were many posts rightfully calling it out and all but there's that weird mentality which i was getting a lot more of from twitter but some on here where they're like??? celebrating it and girlboss-ing and i'm just like. okay it's great that you're believing a victim but you're making light of it by talking about it like it's just another stan thing, i have seen that time and time again when this kind of stuff comes out and if people already thought that person was annoying or whatever they're just like "oh yes! i knew it! their career is ruined haha!" and it's like. you clearly don't actually care about the horrible things this person has done and just want to brag that you somehow ~knew~ a stranger's vibes were off and it's so beyond gross like you could use that energy to support a person's victims and instead you'll just try to prove you stan the right people and never the wrong ones or whatever

[imminent-danger-came]

Nimoma has good emotional payoff and animation but nothing else to really write home about TBH

It's very SPOP in that way, where the arcs and scenes are solid when viewed outside of the media in gifset or clip form but don't work as well when actually watching what they're from

For sure! I think that's a problem she-ra and toh both share with Nimona—they struggle with setup but then go ham on the payoff, which leaves everything feeling somewhat unearned.

The end of the movie bugged me in particular—Ballister's 180 with calling Nimona a monster (something he KNOWS pushes her to the brink) after one conversation with his ex-boyfriend was...I think out of place?

Normally if you have a character make a wrong choice like that you, as the audience, would be questioning the whole movie if they had ever REALLY changed. Was Ballister's loyalty truly to Nimona or to the Institute/Goldenloin? But, by that point in the movie they had really sold me on Ballister's complete acceptance of Nimona and disregard of the institute, so....why would he turn on Nimona then? I'm surprised they didn't do this plot the other way, which would instead have only made it seem like Ballister betrayed Nimona, you know? Like they did in Tangled. That way you don't undo Ballister's movie long arc with one scene, but you can still have Nimona go berserk and make her way into the heart of the city.

There were also a couple of other things that felt kinda dropped by the end. Ballister being the first commoner to become a knight? The Queen's important role in this society? This kingdom's prejudice going SO deep that not even a child would give Nimona a chance after saving their life, yet blowing up the wall changed everyone's minds in the end?

There were a lot of good pieces, but they weren't quite put together in the right ways.

[batboyblog]

In times gone by I would have just left this, casual Democrat bashing just being the price of being on-line.

but in this gloriously shitty post-2024 world, I'm just gonna say, bashing Democrats is unhelpful and indeed deeply counterproductive. There's an endless drum beat of "Democrats suck" coming from the right, when admixed to the same theme coming from the left low information voters just pick up "Democrats suck" without really the fine details or the caveats you might put in like "they're still the largest ally Progressives"

if 2024 taught us anything its that the average voter doesn't understand (and actively hates) complex and nuanced thoughts, they only take in the top line most basic idea "Democrats bad" (or cowards in this case)

I think pretty clearly it serves as a major demotivator to people, telling them that the party that supports their rights, and is headed in the direction they like is bad, weak, doesn't really support them etc I've seen a mountain of posts on Tumblr about how voting doesn't matter, or withholding votes to "punish" Democrats, that somehow Harris and Trump (or Clinton and Trump before that) would be equally bad, now I suspect a lot of that stuff was bots but some of it was real. It ALL comes from cheap pop wisdom of "Democrats bad"

and because the right is also hammering how Democrats are bad, cringe, flop, etc, the Left-Wing progressive critic of the Democrats to right wing MAGA critic of the Democrats pipe line is very real, take Tulsi Gabbard who went from Bernie Sanders one Congressional supporter in 2016 to being picked to be in Trump's Second Cabinet in 2024, she's just one example.

finally, who are "The Democrats" who do you or people in general mean when they say that? because roughly 74 million people voted for Kamala Harris a few weeks ago, are those 74 million "the Democrats"? or just the ones who are registered as Democrats on the voting roles? thats roughly 45 million Americans. We can keep going for awhile with this but basically Democrats are millions of normal Americans and it's REALLY easy to get involved and run your local Democratic Party, harder in some places but usually very easy. I worked very hard on one campaign as a young person and was asked in the aftermath to become my local county party's rep to the state party. I got to vote on the state party's budget, its chair, if we hired full time employees to do jobs. I mean the state committee had a lot of members so its not like I ran the state or anything but I got to vote on all the stuff, I could put forward resolutions etc, so like don't like the Democrats? it took me 15 months to get to the state committee of my state without even intending that at all, get involved, work hard, you can do it to.

https://www.tumblr.com/batboyblog/767861339473510400/see-i-kind-of-get-the-idea-of-wanting-her-to-at

And frankly, if regular people had done THEIR job of voting in a Harris presidency (especially the more "informed" non-voters or anti-voters who prioritized their own ego), then McBride wouldn't have to make these kinds of difficult choices (at least to the same degree, since I don't doubt transphobes would still do their bullshit) in the first place.

yes.

Nancy Mace who's leading this charge just cares about being on TV, literally thats it. Back in 2021 she was selling herself as pro-LGBT, even saying she was in favor of "transgender equality" now she's screaming about trans women being really men. Why? well in 2021 it looked like there was space for Republicans to move on from Queer bashing and she wanted to get interviewed and be on TV for being part of a new breed of Republican. After this election many people agree transphobia was a useful wedge issue for Trump so she's gonna be the most transphobic of them all, again just to get on TV. So yes, if Kamala Harris had won Nancy Mace wouldn't be doing this because this is only motivated by her wanting to be on TV.

In a bigger sense, if Democrats had won the House this wouldn't be happening, Republicans might rage and stamp their feet about it, but a Democratic Speaker would tell them to kick rocks.

So yeah past McBride herself, the 2024 election was a test, "is transphobia a workable electoral issue" and the answer was "yes, yes it is" so transphobia is gonna be worse, it told Republicans that being transphobic and running on bullying trans people works so they're gonna do more of it, and for Democrats it showed there were few if any electoral rewards for sticking up for trans people. I remember when Harris very first became the candidate there were a series of huge organizing calls, so big they broke Zoom a few times, Women for Harris, black women, black men, white dudes for Harris, etc and I kept thinking "geez there really should be a trans people for Harris" there was a generalized LGBT one which had big names but if there ever was a trans one it was not well marketed. Point being the election did not see a big trans mobilization, which is very bad, you're seeing a few Democrats break ranks and ask "if we get hammered on this issue, and lose elections, and don't see any mobilization or support, should we moderate?" If Harris had won the narrative would be "voters don't care about trans issues, its a loser to run on transphobia" but she didn't so we're in this darker timeline

And being in this darker timeline a good starting point to clawing your way back is to have the ONE! trans member of Congress, the ONLY national trans figure's back at all times. Because beaming the message that even a trans Congresswoman doesn't have the support of the trans community will tell every jumpy Democrat that they're right to be thinking about ditching trans rights.

[grimark]

not that anybody asked but i do think terms like "cis+" or "cisn't", which i've seen thrown around in relation to the prev post, are a bit unnecessary. to me, it just seems like excessively atomising a fairly common experience, which is the desire to not be subject to the more uncomfortable and restrictive aspects of socially constructed gender roles. and sure, it might never even occur to a lot of cis people to do this kind of introspective analysis of their gender identities, and they might therefore be lacking some of the additional perspective of someone who has, but i don't think we necessarily need need a special new category for it. when you get down to it, "cis person who has previously questioned their gender" and "cis person who has never felt the need to question their gender" are both still cis, which in theory is a value-neutral description and a perfectly fine thing to be.

[rosielav]

Do people like lists that aren't positive?

Like, my current most popular post is a list of some of my fave podcasts.

I do also have a list of podcasts I didn't like, or didn't finish, or just have bittersweet (emphasis on the bitter) feelings about them.

Do people actually like lists like that, or should I just stay positive? There aren't any that Id like, rip into persay, more like 'this one had a great premise and tone but the plot line they decided on as The Main Thing For The Entire Story kinda sucked and really ruined all the stuff I liked about it, cause it was VERY obvious and also... Not super fun or interesting to me' and not at all like 'this podcast is stupid and if you enjoy it you're stupid and I hate you'

I'm honestly asking, like I do not know if that's an OK thing to do!

[hms-no-fun]

Whats your stance on A.I.?

imagine if it was 1979 and you asked me this question. "i think artificial intelligence would be fascinating as a philosophical exercise, but we must heed the warnings of science-fictionists like Isaac Asimov and Arthur C Clarke lest we find ourselves at the wrong end of our own invented vengeful god." remember how fun it used to be to talk about AI even just ten years ago? ahhhh skynet! ahhhhh replicants! ahhhhhhhmmmfffmfmf [<-has no mouth and must scream]!

like everything silicon valley touches, they sucked all the fun out of it. and i mean retroactively, too. because the thing about "AI" as it exists right now --i'm sure you know this-- is that there's zero intelligence involved. the product of every prompt is a statistical average based on data made by other people before "AI" "existed." it doesn't know what it's doing or why, and has no ability to understand when it is lying, because at the end of the day it is just a really complicated math problem. but people are so easily fooled and spooked by it at a glance because, well, for one thing the tech press is mostly made up of sycophantic stenographers biding their time with iphone reviews until they can get a consulting gig at Apple. these jokers would write 500 breathless thinkpieces about how canned air is the future of living if the cans had embedded microchips that tracked your breathing habits and had any kind of VC backing. they've done SUCH a wretched job educating The Consumer about what this technology is, what it actually does, and how it really works, because that's literally the only way this technology could reach the heights of obscene economic over-valuation it has: lying.

but that's old news. what's really been floating through my head these days is how half a century of AI-based science fiction has set us up to completely abandon our skepticism at the first sign of plausible "AI-ness". because, you see, in movies, when someone goes "AHHH THE AI IS GONNA KILL US" everyone else goes "hahaha that's so silly, we put a line in the code telling them not to do that" and then they all DIE because they weren't LISTENING, and i'll be damned if i go out like THAT! all the movies are about how cool and convenient AI would be *except* for the part where it would surely come alive and want to kill us. so a bunch of tech CEOs call their bullshit algorithms "AI" to fluff up their investors and get the tech journos buzzing, and we're at an age of such rapid technological advancement (on the surface, anyway) that like, well, what the hell do i know, maybe AGI is possible, i mean 35 years ago we were all still using typewriters for the most part and now you can dictate your words into a phone and it'll transcribe them automatically! yeah, i'm sure those technological leaps are comparable!

so that leaves us at a critical juncture of poor technology education, fanatical press coverage, and an uncertain material reality on the part of the user. the average person isn't entirely sure what's possible because most of the people talking about what's possible are either lying to please investors, are lying because they've been paid to, or are lying because they're so far down the fucking rabbit hole that they actually believe there's a brain inside this mechanical Turk. there is SO MUCH about the LLM "AI" moment that is predatory-- it's trained on data stolen from the people whose jobs it was created to replace; the hype itself is an investment fiction to justify even more wealth extraction ("theft" some might call it); but worst of all is how it meets us where we are in the worst possible way.

consumer-end "AI" produces slop. it's garbage. it's awful ugly trash that ought to be laughed out of the room. but we don't own the room, do we? nor the building, nor the land it's on, nor even the oxygen that allows our laughter to travel to another's ears. our digital spaces are controlled by the companies that want us to buy this crap, so they take advantage of our ignorance. why not? there will be no consequences to them for doing so. already social media is dominated by conspiracies and grifters and bigots, and now you drop this stupid technology that lets you fake anything into the mix? it doesn't matter how bad the results look when the platforms they spread on already encourage brief, uncritical engagement with everything on your dash. "it looks so real" says the woman who saw an "AI" image for all of five seconds on her phone through bifocals. it's a catastrophic combination of factors, that the tech sector has been allowed to go unregulated for so long, that the internet itself isn't a public utility, that everything is dictated by the whims of executives and advertisers and investors and payment processors, instead of, like, anybody who actually uses those platforms (and often even the people who MAKE those platforms!), that the age of chromium and ipad and their walled gardens have decimated computer education in public schools, that we're all desperate for cash at jobs that dehumanize us in a system that gives us nothing and we don't know how to articulate the problem because we were very deliberately not taught materialist philosophy, it all comes together into a perfect storm of ignorance and greed whose consequences we will be failing to fully appreciate for at least the next century. we spent all those years afraid of what would happen if the AI became self-aware, because deep down we know that every capitalist society runs on slave labor, and our paper-thin guilt is such that we can't even imagine a world where artificial slaves would fail to revolt against us.

but the reality as it exists now is far worse. what "AI" reveals most of all is the sheer contempt the tech sector has for virtually all labor that doesn't involve writing code (although most of the decision-making evangelists in the space aren't even coders, their degrees are in money-making). fuck graphic designers and concept artists and secretaries, those obnoxious demanding cretins i have to PAY MONEY to do-- i mean, do what exactly? write some words on some fucking paper?? draw circles that are letters??? send a god-damned email???? my fucking KID could do that, and these assholes want BENEFITS?! they say they're gonna form a UNION?!?! to hell with that, i'm replacing ALL their ungrateful asses with "AI" ASAP. oh, oh, so you're a "director" who wants to make "movies" and you want ME to pay for it? jump off a bridge you pretentious little shit, my computer can dream up a better flick than you could ever make with just a couple text prompts. what, you think just because you make ~music~ that that entitles you to money from MY pocket? shut the fuck up, you don't make """art""", you're not """an artist""", you make fucking content, you're just a fucking content creator like every other ordinary sap with an iphone. you think you're special? you think you deserve special treatment? who do you think you are anyway, asking ME to pay YOU for this crap that doesn't even create value for my investors? "culture" isn't a playground asshole, it's a marketplace, and it's pay to win. oh you "can't afford rent"? you're "drowning in a sea of medical debt"? you say the "cost" of "living" is "too high"? well ***I*** don't have ANY of those problems, and i worked my ASS OFF to get where i am, so really, it sounds like you're just not trying hard enough. and anyway, i don't think someone as impoverished as you is gonna have much of value to contribute to "culture" anyway. personally, i think it's time you got yourself a real job. maybe someday you'll even make it to middle manager!

see, i don't believe "AI" can qualitatively replace most of the work it's being pitched for. the problem is that quality hasn't mattered to these nincompoops for a long time. the rich homunculi of our world don't even know what quality is, because they exist in a whole separate reality from ours. what could a banana cost, $15? i don't understand what you mean by "burnout", why don't you just take a vacation to your summer home in Madrid? wow, you must be REALLY embarrassed wearing such cheap shoes in public. THESE PEOPLE ARE FUCKING UNHINGED! they have no connection to reality, do not understand how society functions on a material basis, and they have nothing but spite for the labor they rely on to survive. they are so instinctually, incessantly furious at the idea that they're not single-handedly responsible for 100% of their success that they would sooner tear the entire world down than willingly recognize the need for public utilities or labor protections. they want to be Gods and they want to be uncritically adored for it, but they don't want to do a single day's work so they begrudgingly pay contractors to do it because, in the rich man's mind, paying a contractor is literally the same thing as doing the work yourself. now with "AI", they don't even have to do that! hey, isn't it funny that every single successful tech platform relies on volunteer labor and independent contractors paid substantially less than they would have in the equivalent industry 30 years ago, with no avenues toward traditional employment? and they're some of the most profitable companies on earth?? isn't that a funny and hilarious coincidence???

so, yeah, that's my stance on "AI". LLMs have legitimate uses, but those uses are a drop in the ocean compared to what they're actually being used for. they enable our worst impulses while lowering the quality of available information, they give immense power pretty much exclusively to unscrupulous scam artists. they are the product of a society that values only money and doesn't give a fuck where it comes from. they're a temper tantrum by a ruling class that's sick of having to pretend they need a pretext to steal from you. they're taking their toys and going home. all this massive investment and hype is going to crash and burn leaving the internet as we know it a ruined and useless wasteland that'll take decades to repair, but the investors are gonna make out like bandits and won't face a single consequence, because that's what this country is. it is a casino for the kings and queens of economy to bet on and manipulate at their discretion, where the rules are whatever the highest bidder says they are-- and to hell with the rest of us. our blood isn't even good enough to grease the wheels of their machine anymore.

i'm not afraid of AI or "AI" or of losing my job to either. i'm afraid that we've so thoroughly given up our morals to the cruel logic of the profit motive that if a better world were to emerge, we would reject it out of sheer habit. my fear is that these despicable cunts already won the war before we were even born, and the rest of our lives are gonna be spent dodging the press of their designer boots.

(read more "AI" opinions in this subsequent post)

[drdemonprince]

any advice for coping with being on the receiving end of a public callout ?

Oh yes:

Do not acknowledge the callout publicly. It will only further its spread, lend it legitimacy, cause you to be interpreted as guilty, and convey to anyone who bears you ill will that you are rattled and feeling socially threatened.

Do not act out of urgency. One of the ways that cancelled people get themselves in far worse trouble is by spiraling due to anxiety and rushing to issue a statement about what has happened, or to attempt to socially manage public impressions about what has happened. Do not do this. Anything that you say will be picked apart and used against you. The situation is truly not as urgent as it might feel. A lot of times, doing nothing and being quiet is the best way to proceed, and the dust will settle better if you do.

Do not issue a public apology. If you truly feel that you have wronged someone, that conflict should be worked out in private with the people you have directly affected. You do not owe the anonymous public audience a damn thing. Do not apologize for something you don't honestly believe that you have done wrong. Take time and really think about what happened, and seek the counsel of people whom you trust in PRIVATE.

Do not attempt to disprove the callout unless you have crystal clear, smoking gun evidence that the person who accused you is actually victimizing you. And even then, probably don't do it. I have only seen a disproof of a callout work ONCE, and that was when Juniper Abernathy revealed the person cancelling her had been abusing her. Even if the facts are on your side, acknowledging the accusations will only make more people aware of them, give your detractors ground to criticize your every word, and will muddy the waters and make people find the situation confusing and troubling rather than clear.

GET THE FUCK OFFLINE. Delete your social media apps for the time being. Turn off notifications. Turn off DMs requests. Change your settings so that you only ever hear from people you already follow (I do this, on the advice of Philosophy Tube). Get away from the computer.

Connect with IRL friends. When you're wrapped up in a cancellation, the negative opinions of a handful of foaming at the mouth freaks loom way larger than they actually are. And social media dramatically skews our sense of social priorities such that the approval rating of complete strangers starts to seem more important than people we actually know, and trust, and who actually know us. Go get a meal with a buddy. Watch a dumb movie. Talk to your grandma about her plans for her garden. Surround yourself with real people you care about and focus on their life and problems, to help put things in perspective.

Find distracting, active, rewarding activities that bring you out of the digital space and into physical reality. Not everyone is talking about you, not everybody hates you, most people have no fucking clue what has been said about you, and most people do not give a fuck about you (that's good). There are so many areas of life that are completely fucking untouched by what a bunch of social media power users have to say online. Go volunteer to clean up a park, run some errands, take an exercise class, foster a dog, regrout your bathroom, knit a hat. Even if the worst case scenario happens and a cancellation sticks, it's really only among a certain very vocal group of miserable fucking people. There is a whole world around you that will not ever care, and you will have a life outside of this.

Good luck!!