#I like this idea a lot it’s very interesting to think about

[taffywabbit]

I've been thinking about this song a lot again since yesterday, and if you'll indulge me in being overly wordy and a bit sentimental, I kinda wanna share some of my thoughts here:

so I alluded to this a bit while rambling on bluesky earlier, but early in the process of composing this song I REALLY wanted it to have lyrics. I tried writing some, and having looked at them again this morning, frankly they're kinda garbage and I stand by my decision to scrap them and let the music just speak for itself. but I only really wanted to write lyrics in the first place because I got ONE specific line (and subsequently a chorus, or at least one version of it) stuck in my head and wanted the rest of the song to kinda revolve around it.

the scrapped verses were sorta loosely about how, when you're younger, you tend to have a very straightforward and simple sense of optimism and justice - kids generally believe that things WILL just work out somehow, and often have surprisingly obvious and on-point responses when they learn about societal issues, but adults will often talk down to them and tell them they just don't understand how the real world works yet. and as you get older, that optimism gets conflated heavily with childlike naivety and kinda gets metaphorically beaten out of a lot of people over time, until they're just kinda consigned to the status quo and thinking of societal problems being too large/permanent for them to fix or influence.

this song was meant to embody a sense of rebellious optimism - a stubborn belief that we have a say in the kind of world we live in, and furthermore that our inner child would never forgive us for shrugging and giving up now that we're finally Adults and Adults are supposed to be the ones with the power to actually Fix Things. it was meant to evoke some nostalgia too, sure - thus the title "Grass Stains", which came from the scrapped first verse about childhood, and also just the general musical style being reminiscent of pop punk music I really liked as a kid and still tend to associate with summertime and old video games from that era. but more than that, I wanted to convey the idea that, sooner or later, we have to stop waiting for the Adults to decide how to fix things and get a hand on the ball ourselves; the idea that growing up should empower us, not make us cynical and detached and too tired to care anymore.

anyways, I will spare you most of the unfinished lyrics because I really do promise they're not interesting or good at all, but here's the chorus part and the specific last line that I was really fixated on back then and (for reasons that are probably not hard to imagine) thinking a lot about again now:

you keep pacing

so sullenly facing

away from the task left to you

why can't you see it?

if you want hope, then be it

those gears aren't just going to move

you gotta change the world, before it changes you

so yeah. shit's rough out there right now. shit's been rough for a while and it's gonna continue being rough for the foreseeable future. like I mentioned in the original caption, i wrote this song when I was feeling pretty awful (both mentally and physically, actually - I'm pretty sure I had covid for the second time when I made this lol) and needed something to perk up my mood, and it... kinda worked honestly? and now when I listen to it again I still kinda get a boost from it, especially if I let myself think back to the original message I was trying to imbue it with. it's hard for me to feel totally hopeless or unmotivated while I'm listening to it, and I hope that energy sorta comes through for other people too (though I would obviously be just as happy that people like the music I made anyways, without deeper context or ideas attached to it).

I guess i just wanna say this: remember that the world's gonna change one way or another, but your contributions to it are never meaningless, and their absence would be felt. and you also have the power to embolden and support those around you to become a stronger force for good together. the only real way to fail in all of this is to give up and lay down and let whatever happens wash over you, to believe them when they treat you like you're too small to be a threat or a challenge. and even if you don't believe your efforts matter to anyone else, let them matter to you. if you want hope, then be it. strive to be a force for good in spite of all opposition, and that goodness will in turn continue to propel you forwards.

ok I think that's about as sappy I can stand to be, I'm going to bed lol

hey i finished a new song!! check it out!!

my prompt for starting this was essentially "i'm in a bad mood and i want to make music that'll fix that". apparently what that translated to was whatever genre "music that would make 9-year-old me think they could do a backflip off the swings at the park" is, but like... it DID cheer me up? so, mission accomplished? i hope you enjoy it too!

♫ made with OpenMPT! ✎ cover art by me!

[bwat5-blog]

Caitlyn Kiramman: The Perfect Scapegoat

*Spoilers For Arcane*

Good morning all! So continuing my slow descent into insanity let us discuss Arcane once more. Last night trying to fall asleep I was scrolling Archive and came across another of what I think I have seen being called "aftermath" works, just meaning it is the particular author's spin on Cait and Vi's life fairly immediately following the end of season two.

I am not going to name the work or the author because fan-fiction is literally creative art for the author to do with as they please, and I certainly don't have to read anything I don't want to, so I have no desire to call this person out. But I have seen this sort of thing a lot and wanted to discuss it.

"Caitlyn has to face the consequences for her crimes"

Now I have read some truly abhorrent concepts of "justice" people have put Caitlyn through for her actions, and won't be going there. Some are downright inhuman and others just display a hilarious lack of understanding. But the reason this one stuck with me and really had me thinking is that even though it was not the author's intent based on their notes, I actually think they actually did a fantastic job sharing another side of how Caitlyn was utterly failed by almost everyone around her.

In this particular work, the surviving councilors and the prominent people of Piltover have Caitlyn arrested and conduct a tribunal. Including Mel and Shoola. She is called to answer for a host of charges such as allying with a foreign power against her own people, wrongful imprisonment and so on. You get the idea.

So why does this particular idea stick out to me? Because the audacity of the same people who practically fed Caitlyn to Ambessa, as well as surrendered Piltover while pounding their chests and cheering blaming Caitlyn is so nauseatingly realistic it hurts.

QUICK THING ON MEL:

Now let me clear. Mel would never. And had she been there she would have put a stop to that shit or at the very least nodded along while her mother called Caitlyn up then went to Caitlyn afterward in private and started fixing things. But, it is worth noting that Mel knew full and completely what her mother was planning in terms of starting a war to weaponize hex-tech. And as far as we are aware (I think we can assume she told Alora but we don't know for sure) didn't tell anyone. She was trying to stop her behind the scenes through her shadow games. And there are reasons and justifications for that certainly. In fact I think it's safe to assume Mel may have been afraid her mother would just outright attack if Mel was too aggressive in opposing her. Mel was a politician only at this time, and solved problems through more cerebral methods. Even when her magic manifests it is one primarily of protection and deflection, not head on aggression. Not to mention Mel's unavoidable conflicting emotions opposing her at all. But we will never how things could have been different if the rest of the council were aware of Ambessa's plan to begin with.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED:

This is primarily about her actual time as commander but I wanted to touch on the task force. I recently was discussing the task force/use of The Grey with another user and they stated Caitlyn staged a coup to lead the task force. This of course is in no way true, but as my wife put it:

"She didn't stage a coup but not a single one of those spineless adults thought to look at the emotionally sandblasted college kid and say -No. You haven't even taken a beat since you were abducted and terrorized by your mother's killer and you have just survived another fight. We will figure this out but you don't need this right now. Go hug your incredibly hot girlfriend and take like a fifteen hour nap- instead they let themselves take the easy way out and pinned it all on Caitlyn."

The Commander:

I am not gonna do a whole recap or a break-down of how Ambessa plays these people like a fiddle again. If you are interested I'd love to hear your thoughts on the documents where I have covered those topics!

In Summary: Caitlyn has returned from her mission with the strike team ending in heartbreak and failure in terms of Jinx at least. Totally isolated and alone, not having healed from any of the trauma she has suffered since the beginning of S1 A2, she stands with the other Enforcers while Ambessa expertly manipulates the prominent families of Piltover, the two surviving councilors, and a large amount of Enforcers you would have to assume included leadership (given their presence here and that there clearly many more than this total) into not only agreeing to Martial Law, but to Caitlyn as their commander.

"Caitlyn could have said no"- This is certainly true. I don't think anyone is arguing that myself included. Bu it is extraordinarily important to factor in Caitlyn's mental state at this point which includes a completely mind-boggling amount of trauma. As well as the fact that her people are angry and afraid, and as a Kiramman even at her young age she is someone they look to. Now sprinkle in a healthy amount of mob mentality and manipulation by Ambessa, as she is standing in a crowd of people thumping their chests while the only speaking member of her team stands by her side smiling and encouraging her to go up and accept. And then just to seal the deal Ambessa promises what Caitlyn wants most "your mother will have justice". She absolutely had the choice to say no. I am not negating that. But I do think unless you are intentionally disregarding all of the other factors involved in order to demonize her it is quite clear that things were not so simple. She ultimately made the choice, but ignoring the context doesn't make you righteous. Only ignorant, unfeeling, or both.

And for all those who love rolling out the old "Caitlyn jumped at the first chance to take power and punish all of Zaun just because her mom died" speech, lets take a look at how Caitlyn is actually feeling:

I can only speak for me, but let me tell you what I see playing out in these images point by point:

Shock

Fear

Conflict

Reassurance

Nervousness

Stoic sadness

Acceptance of responsibility

A FUCKING FIFTY SOMETHING YEAR OLD CONQUERING WAR-MONGER SEEING HER DREAM COME TRUE

But! Stepping away from Caitlyn for a moment back to more of my original point. Caitlyn and Ambessa were not alone during this moment. Ambessa had instructed Salo to summon all people of prominence and power or something to that effect. Basically the people who had a say in how things go. These are the people she puppets into agreeing to Martial Law and Caitlyn as their commander. Let's take a look at these heroes:

*Salo was there but I couldn't get a great still of him and I will give him a pass at least in the moment because Rictus was threatening him*

There were more people than this but these were the ones that I could grab in decent quality. And these were the people to make the decision. Otherwise Ambessa would not have needed them all there and gone through her whole song and dance. And I understand the argument that some of them were probably afraid due to the Noxian's doing their stomp dance, but guess what? If the adult politicians and people in power get that grace so does the college kid who recently got emotionally and mentally nuked back to the stone age.

Every single one of them let this happen. They could have stepped during it, they could have taken action after. Salo and Shoola were on the council with Cassandra. They both watch her daughter get served up on a plate to Ambessa so everyone can go about their lives feeling safer and pretending its all handled. There were enforcers there more than twice Caitlyn's age. Someone there was a position of leadership at some level. Not a single damn one made a move? Questioned? An assembly of probably between 30-50 people made up of Piltover's elite all bury their heads in the sand and let the grieving, inexperienced, young, recently returned from violent conflict college kid take the heat so they can go back to easy street and blame someone else if things go wrong.

AWARD FOR SPECTACULAR FAILURE:

We of course cannot touch on the prominent people of Piltover who might as well have spartan kicked Caitlyn into Ambessa's open maw without talking about Tobias. Listen, Anyone who has been following me for any length of time has seen my relentless attempts to get people to recognize the importance of understanding how grief and loss hits people. This man lost his wife. His entire world got turned upside down. And I don't deny that at a point even if he had stepped in Caitlyn may have shut him down as she became the leader of house Kiramman anyway. But he does.... nothing... Part of this probably just comes down to the decision by the writers for him to kind of vanish but we see him defending her efforts to help early on and then when she has so clearly lost her way we get nothing from him.

Martial Law:

So as I said, I have been through all of this in detail. Not doing it again. But since we are talking about it what did Caitlyn actually do?

Establish Checkpoints and take martial control of Zaun.

Arrest people who violated the law.

.............

Piltover elite willingly agree to Martial Law

Piltover elite agree to Caitlyn being made leader

Zaun falls under Piltover jurisdiction regardless of Martial Law or not

Somewhere in Zaun is a dangerous terrorist guilty of multiple political assassinations, the deaths of several enforcers, tremendous destruction of property, multiple attempts to murder Caitlyn herself, and violent abduction of Caitlyn who at the time was a councilor's daughter from her own home.

Zaunite fighters conduct devastating attack on memorial service in what is supposed to be a secure location. Jinx would almost certainly be suspected of involvement but even if not once again the threat comes from Zaun.

The leader they chose, who is the leader because of the martial law they agreed to, places Zaun under occupation until this clear and unquestionable threat to public safety is located. She challenges unlawful arrests, unnecessary violence, bans the use of the worst cells in Stillwater she found Vi in, and has no part in Ambessa's secret experiments and brutality in the bowels of the prison.

None of this is to say that Caitlyn did not make mistakes, did not lose herself to her rage and hate, or does not share in the blame to a degree for the suffering Ambessa caused. I think it is fair to say that Caitlyn, much like those who failed her so spectacularly, looked away from the truth because it was easier to do so at first. And that is not even factoring the massive manipulation of Ambessa upon Caitlyn during this time to keep the occupation going while she continues to try and crack hex-tech, and attempting to control Caitlyn and bend her to her will.

But the idea of the people who all turned away while Caitlyn was made Ambessa's scapegoat so they could sleep peacefully at night condemning her from on high is both disgusting, and sadly all too believable. They have already proved their cowardice and stupidity. And it would be the final betrayal of someone who wanted above all else to protect her people to subject her to some sort of tribunal/punishment in the wake of surviving her cities complete abandonment of her. Especially considering her massive life-changing injuries sustained in the defense of humanity itself while setting things right.

Regarding Zaun:

The people of Zaun are for obvious reasons another matter. There is the larger picture ongoing oppression of Zaun by Piltover to consider, and even considering all the above factors the people of Zaun:

A- Would not have any way to know how much of part Ambessa played behind the scenes until someone made it all public

B- Were the ones who actually suffered during the occupation that Caitlyn did authorize regardless of reasoning.

And just like above, I am not saying Caitlyn does not share in the blame for what occurred. While everything she did was within her scope of authority, an authority lawfully granted to her, and in response to a very legitimate threat to Piltover's safety, it does not change the fact that people imprisoned during the occupation were potentially subjected to Ambessa's brutality. Never mind the day-to-day brutality enacted by Rictus and his men.

But again there are other factors that need to be considered before constructing the gallows:

Piltover's oppression of Zaun is unquestionable. But neither is Piltover's current legal jurisdiction over Zaun. Every action Caitlyn took and was knowledgeable of was completely legal, no matter how wrong you find the law.

The Grey- I am absolutely not doing my whole breakdown again. But through the use of the grey they helped take down Shimmer and the Chem-Barons, which were both enormous threats to the under city. And while it uncomfortable and clearly dangerous when exposed over long periods of time, there is absolutely no evidence of it being dangerous from short term exposure how Caitlyn used it.

And of course, the biggest factor: JINX.

I'll make all of you a deal. Caitlyn gets a noose if Jinx hops up next to her. I love Jinx but it serves no purpose to pretend she's an angel. Jinx is the one who kicks all of this off to begin with. It is because of her that Piltover retaliation is guaranteed, because of her Caitlyn's entire life so violently and radically changes course. And let's be clear here, before you start with all that Jinx was striking out against the oppressors who had ruined her peoples lives in the name of justice and blah blah blah. Nope. Know how I know that? She hid during the entire occupation until Isha got taken. She wasn't speaking truth to power in the name of her people. She was a mentally ill child lashing out at a symbol of her rage in a moment of extraordinary grief and pain. And regarding her hiding by the way, I applauded her for it. Getting away from all of that shit is how she started to get better. As far as I'm concerned I would have cheered to see she and Isha leave that temple fight, board an airship, and head off for adventures far away from Piltover and Zaun forever (Same for Caitlyn and Vi but that's a different document).

So all that said, while Caitlyn certainly has a debt to the people of Zaun, we need to take care not to wrap that up with the debt Piltover owes to Zaun.

Caitlyn is not to blame for the entire history of the two cities. She only played a part in this series of events. And it would be dishonest not to admit that it was a Zaunite that started in the first place, the same Zaunite who changed Caitlyn's life forever through her violence and terrorism. And that the same woman who manipulated Zaunite warriors into attacking Piltover to help kick the war off manipulated Caitlyn herself.

If Silco's mad daughter can become their symbol of hope, and his most trusted lieutenant can become their first councilor, perhaps the people of Zaun can find mercy in their heart for a young woman who recently almost gave her life to make things right. Not to mention her families seat on the council.

Anyway. You have all heard most of this from me before in some form or fashion. So I apologize for that. And again I really am not coming for fan-fiction. I would be the ULTIMATE hypocrite given my recent small efforts. The particular story that got my attention just made me think about it, and then realize it would be sickeningly true to form for the Piltover elite to try and turn on Caitlyn when it was all said and done when they abandoned her the first time. And spawned into this. Thank you for reading.

Have a great day!

[suzukiblu]

Thank-you sentences for derpsheep behind the cut; “a fake cryptid and a real romantic”. (( chrono || non-chrono ))

Tim had originally wondered if Superman was something along the lines of Metropolis’s version of the Batman before finding out that Clark Kent existed and that Superman’s voice did not actually sound like an entire star cycle happening all at once. He’d heard about Krypton long before that, of course, but hadn’t been sure that wasn’t just what humans heard instead of the actual truth. 

It’s not like the Batman actually looks like the Batman, after all. 

Well, except for when he does, obviously. But, like–that aside. 

Tim still hadn’t been entirely sure what to think when he’d found out Superman was actually just a totally normal alien who’d just decided he really liked this one specific human city, just one that was primed for the local environment to the point that if there were literally any other Kryptonians around they’d probably count as an invasive species. Like, probably the planet should be a lot more worried to have found out that Superboy’s genetically stable than anyone actually seems to be? Because Superboy being genetically stable at least implies the possibility of human/Kryptonian crossbreeding, right? And also implies that Superman now very definitely knows that there’s at least a possibility of human/Kryptonian crossbreeding. 

And if there’s any chance that half-human DNA might absorb yellow sunlight better than pure Kryptonian does, given humans evolved under a yellow sun to begin with . . . 

Well, that’s . . . definitely a thought, yeah. 

Possibly Tim should give those files of Superboy’s that he . . . creatively sourced from Cadmus another go-over or two. And maybe go looking in its systems again to see if he missed any classified ones or if there was anything that might’ve been misfiled anywhere in there. Just, like . . . for everyone’s sake. 

He definitely did not forget the whole “lab-grown weapon built like a brick house who is technically capable of disassembling him down to his individual atoms with one little tap and about two seconds' worth of thought” thing. Not even slightly did he forget that thing. 

Unfortunately Tim apparently finds that thing attractive, so that’s something he knows about himself now. 

Well, just file it in with “the idea of being stalked by said lab-grown weapon makes Tim feel admired and interesting” and “the percentage of his very brief lifetime that said lab-grown weapon must’ve spent learning how to form and cut a perfect diamond is mortifying Tim into several different awakenings”, he guesses. 

And like . . . probably something about the whole thing with Superboy finding out that Robin was sort of a freak and just immediately deciding to match said freak. Probably also that. 

Anyway. Off-topic, definitely. Superman definitely isn’t dropping Superboy off for the date-night patrol that the Batman is currently trying to crash, but even if he did, at least he wouldn’t show up sounding like an entire star cycle about it. Which . . . 

Tim does think that he’s heard a voice that sounds like that star cycle somewhere in the reflected daylight, just . . . once or twice, maybe. Come to think of it and all. 

( doesn’t Robin know it yet, it wonders?

it’s not as if a Robin’s never heard one of them before, after all. )

Just–sometimes. Sometimes he thinks that. 

Though it never quite fits, either, and he always seems to . . . 

Wait. Off-topic, right? They’re off-topic. 

. . . what was he thinking about again? 

“Just–we’re going to go nest, okay?” Tim finally tries, though it’s probably the most mortifying thing he’s ever had to say to the Batman. Like, even more mortifying than trying to explain Steph was. Still, it’s the same theory as using Robin’s body language to get his point across, right? Or at least basically the same theory, anyway. “Like. Superboy and I. Collectively. Together. We’re going to go . . . nest. Together.” 

The Batman . . . pauses. Tilts its head a little too far for a human to manage, and also a little too far for anything existing in just three dimensions to manage. Tim’s sinuses throb briefly and he smells fresh blood and burnt gunpowder for a flashed moment in the dark. And . . . popcorn, weirdly. 

He’s never been able to figure out the popcorn. 

kitten, the Batman says musingly. Tim represses a sigh. Body language, he reminds himself. Just–body language. Yeah. 

“Yeah,” he says. “My, uh–kitten and I are gonna go nest.” 

Tim will never, ever live down this conversation. Ever. Even if the Batman never mentions a thing about it again and no one else ever hears a word of it, he will never live it down.

[avelera]

You may have talked about this before, but what's your opinion on Arcane!Machine Herald? Because I've seen him get a lot of hate because he diverges a lot from his original self-made cyborgy lore, but I personally LOVE him to bits. I was kinda worried because Arcane S1 already had lots of mechanical bodymods and an entire race of sentient robots so I was like "ok how is he supposed to be radical compared to that?" and then he engineered himself into a worldending cosmic horror being, i love him

I have no investment in League or its lore so Arcane Machine Herald doesn't have a strong emotional attachment to me one way or the other?

To me, the design emphasizes the magical aspect of the Hexcore taking over Viktor. The one complaint I do understand from League fans and somewhat share is that Viktor's Herald villain arc is a bit muddled with his S1 scientific motivations, to me.

The thing is, to me, Viktor is a scientist, and the Machine Herald and Commune leader stuff is a bit too mystical to me for the Viktor we knew. I have trouble reconciling how he pivoted to that if it was his own choice. That's why I tend to headcanon that the Hexcore was pretty active not just in persuading Viktor to become a Cult Leader, but also for the aesthetics and tone of the cult leader choice, leaning into mage imagery like robes and a staff.

Of course, that robs some agency from the character, which is overall less interesting, but I can't help but feel a true villain arc that was totally self-directed by Viktor would have been a bit more scientific, it would have been more him willfully replacing parts of himself to stay alive.

But as you noted too, that doesn't really work within Arcane, neither does that original Machine Herald motivation. We've got Bolbok on the Council who is basically a robot, we've got Sevika and the entire undercity with tons of metal body modifications. Viktor making it some sort of cause to replace humans with machine parts to cure their imperfections doesn't really work in Arcane as something that's an ideological stand or a philosophy of any kind. It's just day to day life. So from there, I understand leaning more into mysticism as his route for making people "perfect".

Perhaps my... hmm, not point of criticism but simply a personal story squick is that I don't like cults and I don't like the hippy sort of imagery they went for with Cult Leader Viktor, for me the whole vibe was very squicky throughout (which is why I was thoroughly baffled when people ever thought the cult was a good thing, I was silently screaming with discomfort the whole time) and a part of me really struggled to reconcile how S1 Viktor would ever choose to craft a place like this. Like I said, that's why I kind of had to go with the idea, for my own sake, that Viktor on his own wouldn't craft some weird hippy monastery where everyone just works and praises him all day, that this is an element of the Hexcore. That Real Viktor if he could control his own actions and was fully present (rather than half living on the astral plane) would also be horrified.

As for how this lends to the Machine Herald design *shrug* that's also a very "mystical" look to me, it follows from the more magical take on Herald, but it is artistically cool and very alien. Personally, I see it as simply the humanoid form of the Hexcore, its choice for what it will look like, and it's basically just using Viktor as a battery at that point to power itself in turn and to give itself a voice, Viktor is all but wholly subsumed, he didn't design that look, he has been the cocoon for the Hexcore growing inside him, and Ekko + Jayce + Anomaly Future Viktor are needed to rip it off of the real Viktor, who is immediately horrified by all that occurred and, to me, had very little agency throughout while being constantly fed the belief that he did have control. Honestly, I think Viktor was contending with an ancient seed of Void power using him as a vessel and he was hilariously outclassed by something far more ancient and powerful than him using him as an incubator for itself but, again, that's just one possible interpretation.

I know this got a bit off topic but yeah, I agree on some points about how the original Herald stuff just doesn't work in Arcane and the rest is sort of my more general feelings about the Herald and the Herald look.

[batboyblog]

I fundamentally disagree with your take that any future/ongoing users of TikTok are supporting or enabling trump.

We don’t use TikTok or any other social platform because of the CEO. We use social media because of the communities we form and love.

Obviously trump wants it back because it helped his election campaign, but that doesn’t negate every positive collective action or community that formed on the app. Everything good also has bad, because as the saying goes, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. We can try to be good, but we can’t only support ethical companies.

Also, what about international users? I’m Australian, and trump impacts Australian politics directly and indirectly, but does me using TikTok support him? It’s still an independent company.

Given the ban was done by congress, not the executive, I have every reason to believe that a Harris/democrat office would also make efforts to stop the ban. It’s easy political points.

I'm gonna try to be nice, which given my mood today, the impending Trumpalypse and the hostage release today have me in a bad mood.

Sooooo I have to reject the idea that helping re-elect Trump could ever be balanced out by any other "good", if such good even exists, that any app, person, or organization does.

before anyone jumps in to smugly tell me they're not an American so Trump being the American President doesn't matter, I'll remind you, we all live on the same planet. One thats getting warmer? in case you hadn't noticed. 2024 was the first year on record to breach the 1.5 degree warming mark that is very bad news. President Biden passed the biggest climate action bill that any government anywhere on earth ever ever has passed. Trump has pledged to repeal that law, and also hold back all the money in it not already spent.

as you can see under Biden we're on goal through 2030, and then more and different policies would be needed to get us where we need to go, which Biden team in the dying days of his administration has set not that Trump will follow through.

so point being helping re-elect Trump might have doomed the planet so idk about anything "good" TikTok could possibly do to make up for being Responsible or the single biggest climate disaster in human history.

any ways, as a Jew when I think of TikTok I think antisemitism

"Jewish teens say life on TikTok comes with anti-Semitism" 2020

"Sliding Through: Spreading Antisemitism on TikTok by Exploiting Moderation Gaps" 2023

"How fast does TikTok send users down the antisemitic rabbit hole?" 2024

being on the internet right now as a Jewish person is fucking wild, buck wild, seeing people in their teens and 20s say NAZI, old school, 1940s Nazi shit on-line, in videos with their faces, it is everywhere and TikTok is some of the worst of it.

on top of which TikTok is spoon feeding massive amount of disinformation to users all the time, from mental health, to Covid Vaccines, to conspiracy theories that are effecting the real world. And studies show its actively hurting teens, pushing them toward self harm

speaking of Australia, its very clear that China is REALLY interested in influencing your country seeking to shift Australian public opinion against Taiwan and in favor of China, as well as push the country toward a more isolationist view. Also they're using data from not just TikTok but other apps to track people, and actively kidnap Chinese nationals in Australia who offend Xi's government. That's a wider problem than just TikTok of course, but it's super fucking scary.

So sorry the app you like is getting the axe in the US? I guess? but short form video in and of itself might be bad for your health. Apps like TikTok don't allow you to do what I've done here, offer links and data to back up what I'm saying so fact checking and accountability is basically 0. Finally there's a lot of evidence that TikTok has put its finger on the scale to push propaganda for Trump, for Xi and generally destabilize the world.

finally, what community? watching videos fed to you by a computer isn't a connection, its certainly not a conversation.

oh also "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" is not some magical spell, it doesn't do away with the need to do good in the world, its meant to say don't let perfect be the enemy of good, whats the least bad option, nothing is flawless, but that doesn't mean going on to the app who's parting message to America was "big good daddy Trump gonna come save us" like fuck man thats bad

[olderthannetfic]

Just experienced some of the sadder results of people using AI more and more, and it was about telling a story so I think you lot on this blog here may feel with me.

Me and my sister are making a surprise for my other sister and her children. I am house sitting for that second one and there is a Tumblr post around here somewhere about someone that hid a bunch of plastic duck in their parents house as a joke. And I thought, that’s so cool, let’s do that too.

So me and the first sister decided to hide things in the house while the family are away and place riddles with each hiding place to point to the next one and tell a tiny little story with it. My sister immediately said we can use AI to make those riddles. She was all enthusiastic about it too, all “well that’s so low effort on our part and what comes out is good, see”. I didn’t say anything about it, not particularly interested to have that discussion with her then and I will make my part of the riddles on my own anyway.

But then we started brainstorming together, and she started writing short examples of the riddles, as a “dump to use to use to feed the AI after”. And she got so into it. Wrote the whole things out, more and more and more. And I was watching and suddenly realised what was happening: That’s her creativity finally finding an outlet. Finally she is not stifling it with just using AI to be faster and have it done or whatever. And it flowed out of her so big and fast. And she was having so much fun with it and just couldn’t stop anymore.

Made me very sad to imagine people who are letting their creativity starve because supposedly making the AI give them ideas or write stuff for them or what have you is just “easier” and “better”, isn’t it. Everyone says so, after all, have you not seen the hype.

I don’t use AI, but it’s (mostly) not out of conviction of its evil. I think there are some very good ways AI can help. But only where it makes sense, like mass analysis of datasets like cancer cells and stuff like that. Things we as humans are genuinely not capable of doing. But for everything else I will never even dream of using it, because I am a creative person and I like being creative, be it for stories, art, recipes, ideas of trips or whatever. Yeah, it will take me longer and I will spend effort and energy on it and sometimes I will fail. But at the end I like those hours I supposedly “wasted”, because I got to flex my mind and that is fun.

--

[hellobitchlet]

Even though a lot of the people interested in Phainon are hi3 fans, nobody has mentioned the massive elephant in the room that is... Acheron already killed hsr Kevin. There was an entire youtube teaser about it. She told Welt that she did it in the main storyline, albeit without name dropping him. Surely, I'm not the only one who noticed...? Cause I think it was pretty obvious.

The only ideas I can come up with as to what tf is going on here is as follows;

1- the theory that Amphoreus is a time loop of something that already happened is true, and Phainon somehow escaped Amphoreus, developed hi3 Kevin's personality, ended up in Izumo, and got killed by Acheron. Aka Phainon is a younger version of Acheron's Kevin, and he goes through a similar arc to hi3 Kevin. This would be surprisingly good foreshadowing for Hoyo.

2- this is some previous era-current era type time bullshit, and each of these Kevin's are from different 'eras' of hsr's universe. This implies that this mystery is set up to reveal that hsr's universe also has the weird time fuckery that is going on in hi3's universe. Also implies some Very Weird Things about Silver Wolf, seeing as she is a Bronya, and it's technically not confirmed that she's from another universe (yet).

3- either Phainon or Acheron's Kevin aren't actually from hsr's universe. Most likely Acheron's Kevin, as Phainon already has a childhood in Amphoreus, and a big part of his character so far is specifically "doesn't know shit about places outside of Amphoreus". This puts into question why Acheron was acting like her Kevin IS from this universe.

[rochand]

Oh man hope you don't mind this random reblog (plus rambling)! But I agree with so much of what you said here & I think it’s helped clarify some of my thoughts on it.

I feel much the same way about the reboot vs. the original. I enjoy a lot of the reboot for what it is, and like you said, I think it’s fairly clear what they were trying to go for in terms of theme. (i.e. tell a story about "the power of family" in the same vein as stories about "the power of friendship.") But . . .

I do think it's less satisfying in many ways because the core premise of Shazam/ Captain Marvel is the (extreme, literal, divine) empowerment of a child. It's not just a "scrappy underdog" story, it matters that Billy Batson is a child, specifically.

And while it does make sense to connect Billy to other people (including adults and/or family figures) to help the story stay grounded and relatable to readers . . . you have to be careful with how you do that or else you can undermine the "extreme child empowerment" so crucial to the character.

So like . . . take Victor and Rosa. There’s something about them I really like, which is the way they fill a particular role that got left open with changes the reboot made to Shazam.

in the original, the wizard is the first one to believe in Billy, for lack of better words. He’s seen Billy at his very "lowest" and most downtrodden, but singles him out for recognition due to how well he’s born up under those hardships and come through them with good character. In the reboot, though, this is different; Shazam takes a much dimmer view of Billy’s character and openly doubts that Billy is good enough (or explicitly says he isn’t, depending on version).

Instead, Rosa and Victor are now the ones who first believe in Billy as an inherently good kid and stick up for him, even when things "look bad." Ex:

(Shazam! Volume 1 (2013) by Geoff Johns & Gary Frank)

I kind of like this because . . . where the original Shazam basically has divinely perfect knowledge of Billy's life and character, Victor and Rosa largely have to do this on "faith." IDK, I find it interesting in that sense!

But the fact that Victor and Rosa are put in the role of Billy’s foster parents sets them up to fail in other ways, imho. Like, I would argue that a consistent barometer of adult “goodness�� in Captain Marvel is the extent to which the adult empowers children vs. imposes adult authority/ control over children in a way that’s unwanted/ unnecessary.

To expand a little bit - like, we know that in real life children have various “needs” from adults. Material (food, shelter, clothing); emotional (love, affection, emotional support); psychological/ behavioral (routine, structure, help with self-regulation, you get the idea). Some of these things are actively “wanted” by the child, but others will be “imposed on” the child in their best interest.

I’d say that the former are . . . implied to be “okay” to give to Billy, according to the underlying “rules” of Captain Marvel. But the latter are not, if that makes sense.

Golden age Billy, for example, could benefit from “wanted” things like parental love and affection when made available to him. But I’d say he’s never really shown to "need" limits being placed on him for his own good?

He’s never really shown to have a problem with, say, emotional self-regulation (or anything else kids might struggle with at various developmental stages) that interferes with his life socially or as a superhero. Like you pointed out, he's highly responsible, good-natured, and self-sufficient. Were his golden age characterization being used today, Billy would come across as more of a candidate for emancipated minor status than someone who needed ongoing adult supervision, imho.

Reboot Billy, on the other hand, often does have more obvious problems with emotional maturity, or other things that get in the way of his social/ superhero life. I'd say reboot Billy's problems aren't necessarily "because" he's a kid (adults could also struggle with them), but are still the sort of thing you could point to and say “well, clearly Billy could benefit from some kind of adult guidance here, regardless of his personal thoughts/ feelings on the matter.”

From an out-of-universe perspective, the departure from golden age characterization is partly because we now expect our comic book protagonists to go through some kind of emotional arc and have a certain degree of psychological realism (or w/e). But I’d argue that the realism still has to serve the narrative and defer to fantasy in favor of the theme, only the reboot is axing some of the "child empowerment" aspect in favor of the "power of family."

Golden age Captain Marvel has you suspend your disbelief on Billy (and what a 12-year-old boy should realistically need) in a more wide-ranging way, so it can really hammer the child empowerment angle. But because the reboot is angling for a more modern/ realistic take on a child superhero, it only asks you to suspend your disbelief on certain “external” things fundamental to the superhero genre, like the existence of magical powers, and not so much on things "internal" to Billy as a child character.

What you then end up with is a more circumscribed version of Captain Marvel. One who is still empowered in the literal sense, with the magic of the gods, but is not empowered in other ways that are more abstract.

For example, as reboot Billy’s foster parents, Victor and Rosa have to have Billy attend school. For one thing, this is arguably in Billy’s best interest, but also, truancy laws exist and Billy is almost certainly not old enough to drop out. (And from an out-of-universe perspective, we can argue that it’s more realistic and relatable for school-aged audiences as well.)

But compare this to golden age Billy’s job at WHIZ radio:

(from "Introducing Captain Marvel", Whiz Comics #2 (1940)

Golden age Billy actively wants the job! And he's able to convince an adult to give it to him via his literal empowerment (as Captain Marvel) as well as a more intangible empowerment. (Ex. the way Billy refuses to allow adults to dismiss him, and advocates for himself and what he wants. And possibly in defiance of child labor laws, lol).

It does give Mr. Morris a position of authority over Billy as his boss, but that authority is limited in scope, and ultimately due to the nature of their relationship as employer and employee. Not because of their status as adult vs. child.

Arguably, school “shouldn’t” have a much worse impact on Billy’s ability to be Captain Marvel than a job, if you’re thinking about it in terms of like, realistic time commitments and so on. But IMHO it “feels” totally different in terms of how it implies adult authority and Billy’s relative empowerment.

To bring it back around -

I think this is one reason why Freddy, Mary, and the newer kids introduced in the reboot enjoy more acceptance from fans than Victor and Rosa do.

On the one hand, the Shazamily kids make Billy less "special" in the sense that Billy is no longer uniquely empowered (and depending on the version, they sometimes make Billy less powerful when he shares his powers with them). But we are more willing to tolerate this because they are also children who are disadvantaged in some way, just like Billy is.

When they, too, get empowered, they are reinforcing the story’s overall theme and extending it to allow for a wider exploration of the different types of struggles kids face. Even when they clash with Billy, they're doing so as peers, not as adults trying to impose some kind of higher authority on him.

In this way, the Shazamily kids further the reboot theme of "family = strength," but never challenge the original theme of "child empowerment" in a way that matters. Victor and Rosa, on the other hand, support the first but (arguably) not the second.

I don’t think this is an insurmountable problem or anything - or that they (as parental figures) need to be axed for the sake of the story. But I do think it’s something we’re kind of picking up on and responding to a little bit.

(And I think it's one reason why "homeless Billy Batson" is still very much a thing even in reboot fic!)

I've finally realised why I fundamentally disliked the New 52 version of Shazam/Captain Marvel.

I've had nitpicks about it before, but I always chalked it up to my personal preferences, and not anything inherently wrong with the retcon. It just wasn't my thing.

However, I could never shake the feeling that there was some deeper flaw to it than a mere difference in taste. New 52 Billy is a very different character to his older versions, but the core of his backstory (homeless orphan, history of abuse, extreme independence) was arguably retained, just in a new modern rendition. So why did I feel like the new 52 had lost something important?

Then it hit me.

Any version of Billy Batson would, realistically, never let himself have parents again.

Now that is not to say they don't have merit, I can see the vision with them. A perfectly normal, loving, and safe parental unit to contrast the insanity of Billy's life and give him that sweet hurt/comfort goodness. In the end, though, I could never get used to them. Even with all of Billy's changes in the new 52, it always felt deeply ooc whenever he would respect their authority or consider their comfort more important than his responsibilities. In fact, the new 52 version of him is even more distrusting of adults than the golden/silver age version, so Billy compromising his independent personality (especially after he gets his powers) feels like a huge contradiction to both his original and retconned selves. The Vasquez's aren't developed enough characters to make such a huge narrative trade off satisfying. This weird "distrusts authority figures + is proficiently independent yet let's them dictate his responsibilities and make choices on his behalf" characterisation extends beyond the Vasquez's and into Billy's professional relationships with the League. I love reading things where the trinity try and parent Billy, but the fun of it is how he never let's them in the end. Billy's been treated like an equal long enough for him to have seen his colleagues true selves, there is no chance in hell he'd let Superman dad lecture him when he's seen the man at his worst before.

While I never enjoyed the new 52 "Shazamily" brand, I could tolerate it. I never found any of Billy's siblings aside from Mary and Freddy compelling for various reasons, but Darla, Pedro, and Eugene were alright as far as superfluous characters went. What I really never liked were the Vasquez parents, Rosa, and Victor.

What I love about Billy Batson as a character is how inherently tragic he is, but in more subtle ways. Billy was orphaned/abandoned which is sad in and of itself, but the real meat and potatoes is what came after. Billy's been failed by everyone in life, but will not give up faith in people irregardless. He is the world's most competent 12 year old, with wisdom beyond his years and hard won skills that helped him survive on his own. All of this is what made him worthy of the lightning, what made him different and less likely to misuse such power.

Billy Batson in any era of DC always starts out as one of the weakest members of society. His misfortune always stems from the selfishness of others, who's proclivity to abuse their privileges make the boy intimately acquainted with the worst mankind has to offer. He has been robbed at every turn of good choices, and left with the hard ones instead. Education or food? Entertainment or work? How far is he willing to go for survival? If he lies, cheats and steals will he still want to survive by the end? if it means losing who he wishes to be?

If I were in his circumstances, I would be insulted by any attempts to parent me. Acknowledging that I deserved better wouldn't negate a childhoods worth of untrustworthy adults. By that point I'd be so used to living on my own that any well-meaning adults attempt to "lessen my burden" would certainly chafe. God forbid anybody try discipline me in the hopes of providing structure. I would never respect them again. Put the fucking mantle of Champion of Magic on all that, with an ancient wizards seal of approval, and I'd be out of any foster home faster than you could blink.

Why the hell does Billy stay in a house with a bedtime, and lectures, and restrictions on his ability to choose if he can transform into an invulnerable demi-god who can teleport into a safe, warm pocket dimension? Why doesn't he sell off some old junk from the rock, impersonate an adult, get a cheap apartment and load it up with magic wards and runes and just live there? This kid is divinely sanctioned as worthy of responsibility, why the fuck would he listen to life advice from two adults he barely knows? Billy can still be humble about his power while also having a spine about it.

Billy can have as many siblings as he wants, even if I don't find them all that interesting, but I don't think he would ever want parents again. Not if it meant losing the security that comes with full self-determination. He deserves to have had parents, but the tragedy of Billy Batson is that he can't. He has power unimaginable, is a beloved public figure and successful superhero, all these things that only existed in dreams before, but he doesn't have parents, arguably the one thing universally all children should get to have.

[l-in-the-light]

"I'm sure he's got nothing to do with me!" says Luffy and I was waiting for him to say it. For him to hear all of this Nika lore and declare that, nope, I don't care, I'm not Nika, I'm not a liberator. It's just such a Luffy thing to do. But I know many fans actually will be shocked with Luffy's answer here or will just dismiss it. I have seen many opinions before that Luffy was always a liberator by choice, so becoming Nika is just natural course of events for him and he will have no problem embracing his role in the bigger scheme of things. Some even complained they hate that Luffy is Nika because they don't want Luffy to be the "fated hero" but instead a "from nobody to the king of the world" trope. But nope! Luffy just noped all of this himself.

Luffy is not a liberator and he's not an altruistic hero, he doesn't go from island to island aiming to save people, and if you think he wanted to, then please remember Fishmen Island and how unhappy he was with the idea of being a hero:

And now if you think Luffy changed since then because Dressrosa happened, then please remember what he asked of Momonosuke in Wano:

Yep, that's right. Luffy still *doesn't have any interest* in becoming a hero. If you think he's alright with that and changed his mind, then you're just not paying attention to him, sorry to say that. Luffy has been pretty consistent about this too and now he declared it yet again in Elbaf. It's the third time already.

You just think it's not a big deal because he so easily changed his mind in Fishmen Island, but it happened only because he had an actual reason to do that. Jimbei promised Luffy all the meat he wants. He gave him a *personal reason* to act like a hero, which is why Luffy agreed. And he did the same in Dressrosa. He wouldn't liberate that country if he didn't get attached first to Law and Rebecca (yes, in this order), and his crew to tontattas. They always do it for someone particular, for their friends. It's the same in Wano too, Luffy's constant motivation is Tama, Momo and Kinemon. He wants them to be happy, most of all, and he even says as much when he defeats Kaido: "I want a world where all of my friends can eat as much as they like".

There, he doesn't do it altruistically because he hates oppresion and villains who thrive on pain of common people and he can't stand seeing it. Yes, he probably thinks it's unfair, but he also grew up in Goa Kingdom, the very definition of unfair regime. He saves oppressed people only when they are his friends or has some other personal interest involved. He defeats the Marine base in Shells Town for Koby (and Zoro, later). He defeats Don Krieg so he can repay his food debt to Baratie. He defeats Arlong for Nami. He fights Wapol for Chopper (who saved Nami) and who he already considers his friend because of that. He fights for the Giants (Little Garden) and Vivi (Alabasta), Conis (Skypiea), Robin (Water 7 and Enies Lobby), Brook (Thriller Bark), Hachi (Sabaody) etc. Though, he does make friends rather easily, so usually it's not that big of a deal. But he isn't going out of his way to places he reads about in the newspapers that need to be liberated, he instead cares more for his own dream. He doesn't enter a certain island with the idea in mind that goes like "if I see some injustice here, I'm gonna bring this shit down". It's the other way around. He makes friends and realizes they're unhappy.

He wants them to be happy again and to live without regrets, and that's why he brings the shit down, whatever it is that makes people he cares about feel so unhappy. Because he thinks this is at least something he can do for his friends. Luffy doesn't think he can do a lot of things, he can't do much at all, but he can do one thing: beat up a guy when needed.

He knows how regret feels like ever since he believed Sabo died, he's not gonna sit there and do nothing next time something like this happens. That's why it's so important for him, to make sure his friends are happy. And that's why he beats up people and liberates countries. It's not for justice, he simply wants his friends to be happy.

But wait a moment, Luffy also wants freedom. Yes, he does. He wants to be the King of the Pirates, because for him it means to be free. And that's how he actually speaks about Nika as well:

He wants the freedom for himself. Isn't it funny that he thinks he already achieved it though?

And before you're disgusted by how selfish Luffy actually is, hear me out: Luffy is simply not a martyr. He won't die or sacrfice himself for the world to liberate it. He will instead die for the world if he thinks that will make his friends happy. Preferably though, he would want to survive and eat that meat with them, and be happy together.

Still, if you want him to be a liberator of a whole world it is actually possible, you just need to make it personal for Luffy, like I suggested. For example, put a person or multpile people who want to save/destroy the world (whichever option you fancy) on Luffy's crew. Luffy always cares for dreams of his crewmates and will always support them (because fullfilling their dreams will make them happy), so he would become a liberator if that helps them. But he would do it for them, not for the world.

Luffy is not a hero because he has a golden heart and a strong sense of justice. He's a hero when his friends are in danger instead, because instead of a golden heart, he simply has a big heart and makes friends wherever he goes. A martyr-like hero who sacrfices himself for people without caring for his own wellbeing is noble, but it's also not a healthy mentality, believe it or not. For starters, if you never care enough for yourself and are ready to throw your life away for a concept, what will happen with people who love you and care for you? Is it fair towards them to throw your life away without caring who you're leaving behind and how they will feel about it? Do you even care then for their feelings if your pursuit of greater good is more important to you? You can save the world and make people you love sad and unhappy, and like they don't even care anymore to live, because you were the one who made them happy and now you're gone. Did you save the world for them or destroyed it for them instead, as the result?

Luffy has his own interest in saving his friends too: so he's not alone again. Humans aren't selfless beings, but it doesn't automatically make us bad people either. And sometimes, while pursuing selfish things, we do something that appear to be extremely selfless. But at the bottom of it: we also do it for themselves, even if it kills us.

Tokyo Babylon taught me that every act is selfish, even if it appears like we do it for someone else: we simply want to feel better about ourselves then. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as we don't lose the sight of other people's feelings on our way. We can always share, after all, and that sharing is the bridge between the lone islands that people are.

Luffy, if he dies, will also say, just like Seishiro: "I didn't do it for you. I did everything by my own choice". For myself. Despite the fact it is also true he does it to make his friends happy. Being selfish and being selfless is like two sides of the same coin and both choices can end up actually hurting people. In the first case, because you care too much about yourself and too little about feelings of others, and in second case because you care too little about yourself and still too little about feelings of people that love and care for you. Can you spot the thing in common here?

[thrashkink-coven]

People ask me all the time why I’m not a Christian. Why would I possibly be pagan? I claim to know all this stuff about the Bible but I somehow don’t subscribe to it? Do I not believe in Jesus’ teachings?

You wanna know the real reason why I personally feel compelled to not be a Christian? It’s not because I disagree with certain laws or think that Jesus didn’t have any valuable teachings. Despite my differences in opinion on morality, things like being lgbtq, the role of a woman, the importance of witchcraft etc, I could get over all that nitpicky stuff if I felt truly inspired by the story.

There are only two real reasons why I don’t subscribe to the Christian doctrine

1. Return to a perfect past

I find it hard to conceptualize a God that refers to his people as his slaves and servants, I have a lot to say about the doctrine that is supremacy, which lays the foundation for Christian theology, but beyond that, this idea of “God is all good and the only reason anything negative ever happens is because Satan brought death and sin into the world” is actually a very interesting idea to me. Like no, evil and death isn’t natural at all you’re just so used to living in an evil world that you can no longer recognize the original creation. God tells us to turn away from the world because the world is no longer his perfect creation but an amalgamation of his creation with the evil of Satan and man.

I like this idea, but I also think it’s incredibly flawed. It’s typical for many religions to glamorize the ancient past, and believe that there is a perfect beginning.

I think about when my bf buys me roses, I immediately hang them out to dry and let them die. Somehow they seem more beautiful to me that way, in an eternal state of dead perfection, wilted and faded, but somehow still alive in some way. Death doesn’t do us part, I can appreciate them forever though death and beyond. I think about moldy bread, how disgusted it makes me, but how fascinating it is to view up close when you actually pay attention.

In a pre-sin/death world, dead, dried roses and moldy bread wouldn’t be a thing. Is a world without death perfect? Is eternal life greater than eternity in death? Is a painless world perfect to a masochist?

I think that ancient peoples romanticized the past for the same reason we do, they weren’t there. Somehow, it’s more comfortable to believe we fucked up somewhere along the way, and if we could just figure out what it was, we could return to that state of perfection.

One of my favourite stories is Paradise Lost. Within it, when Adam and Eve are banished from the garden of eden, there is a very powerful exchange between the two, wherein Adam says to Eve, despite our sins and the wickedness of the world, I will still love you. You are still the queen of eden to me. We still have each other. The true testament of love is being able to love even in the face of adversity.

Although tragic, I believe this is what humanity has always been doing. Perhaps we didn’t come from a perfect beginning, perhaps we crawled our way to the top of the evolutionary ladder with white knuckles. Perhaps the world has always been perfectly imperfect, and we have still managed to find this divine love along the way. I don’t see the point in desperately trying to go backwards, when these experiences have only made us stronger. The tragedy is the acceptance of cause and effect. Is suffering a perfect invention because liberation was born from it? Christianity says it’s not, that the cost of human suffering was not worth whatever we gained, that satan made an unnecessary and frivolous mistake. I struggle to conceptualize world in which the entirety of human history as it has played out has been a cosmological mistake.

I believe that we are children finding our way, slowly, very fucking slowly, but surely.

and this leads into my second reason.

I honestly don’t really have anything against Jesus Christ. In my mind he is an entirely neutral character, not because I don’t believe in his existence, but because if I believe he is real, I pity him more than anything else.

In my opinion, Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, though a very beautiful and interesting philosophical idea, did not save humanity, and did not set us free. It didn’t save the world and it does not provide us with the tools to save the world.

Within the Christian theology, no man can get to God except through Christ. This is because Jesus died for our sins, he payed the price so we could see salvation. God so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that all those who believe in him may have eternal life. Christianity fundamentally operates on the idea that the sacrifice of the most pure, most innocent, is the necessary price to pay for the salvation of everyone. To deliver humanity from sin, the most virtuous human had to be sacrificed. Humanity had to essentially spiritually cannibalize itself, eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus to be cleansed. And I honestly, absolutely despise that idea.

I say I pity Jesus, not only because of the way his legacy has been bastardized and fetishized on a global scale, (Jesus was God but he was also a human, at one time he was a child. Imagine being a 10 year old Jesus and knowing the implications of your existence) but also because I don’t think his sacrifice saved the world, I don’t think it saved me. Spiritual salvation is a plan to bail everyone out after they die, after revelations. There is no plan to save this world because at least theologically, God does not have faith in humanity to save this world. Jesus’ plan is an escape plan, one that comes to save all the righteous while the wicked burn for eternity.

I disagree, and maybe it’s my naivety. I believe that we can save this world, not by casting out the wicked, but by collectively doing the basic human fundamental, just loving each other. The key to save the world has always been simple. Love has never been a popular movement. Every conflict in all of humanity would be resolved if we all saw each other as kin. Disentangling the systems of oppression and supremacy that have always rotten the world. That means fighting evil, that means tragedy and violence. But just as we have taught ourselves many doctrines over the centuries, I believe, or hope, with enough time, we can teach ourselves a doctrine of love and empathy. I believe most humans are capable of this. And I believe that we can have extra humanity to handle and disarm those that can’t.

“but Jesus tried to do that and humans killed him!”

They killed Huey P. Newton too. We keep on fighting. Not because we want to be assured in death that we are good people. But because, if there is a chance for a world in which children can sleep on fields of grass and the words “war” and “hunger” are ancient memories, where trees whose names I know can grow as tall as the heavens and water is always clean, then I will fight my hardest to push the world towards that future. And if I die before I see it, then I hope you keep on pushing for me. That is the love that humanity has for itself, and there is no God that can do that for us.

The Bible says that God so loved the world that he gave his only son. I wish that God so loved the world that he came to fight alongside all his children, and didn’t give up until he had finally touched the heart of every human, made them understand the value of this world, the world we have right now, and the life we have right now before it is engulfed in flames. You, all powerful God, could not change the hearts of men? Because they refused you? Because they, in their ignorance, embraced the world that birthed them, and not the stranger that abandoned it? Shook it up and started over, again, because the mess was too ugly to clean up? I don’t believe you.

There are multiple times in the Bible where it says that humans are evil, and I simply don’t believe it. People are born with mental disorders and acclimate to trauma, but I do not believe that people are born evil, and I don’t believe in a God who lets his children burn. Whether that be in a fiery Hell or in the dark separation from light.

It is only through knowledge that we have disabled these beliefs in evil people. You aren’t possessed by demons, you have BPD. You’re not evil, you have autism. We can understand each other if we only take the time to try. And understanding is the one thing that humanity has always craved.

We are children, we are born without understanding and come to know the world as it interacts with us. We have the infinite potential to learn and that’s what makes us so special as a species. Humans, these insatiably curious creatures who will not stop until they have seen every star, turned over every rock, and documented every crevice of the ocean floor. What better creature to inhabit the earth, and who else to save it?

If Jesus died for my sins, thanks. I didn’t ask you to do that, and I’m not going to depend on it. If there truly is a God that is good, then I will prove myself to him though my actions and love towards his creation. And if he deduces that I am evil, I will not use the shedded blood of the innocent to rectify myself. I’m sick in dealing in blood, I don’t have to think in the same terms as a War God.

Idk, maybe that’s just the Luciferian in me.

[velvetvexations]

Please correct me If I'm wrong, but didn't Playdough's whole beef with Bechdel trying to reframe her as a TERF start originally because escentially she wanted to prove that HOMESTUCK is somehow more deep and influencial and important queer media than DTWOF?? It was a poll thing and people where getting mad that homestuck was beating dtwof (this is the homestuck website like cmon) so Playdough started there the discourse of Bechdel being a terf to discredit her work

I have no idea if homestuck is actually that queer in it's content, but this incident made me realize something very common about pretentious cult-like groups like TRF and Tankies.

They want to find the way to parrot that their interests are somehow morally superior and more correct than other's; forcemem can not be just a kink it's actually a culturally significant political practice and forcemasc is just a transmisogynist bastard copy, transfem headcanons can not be just normal fandom shit for enjoyment they are the more correct and intelectual reading an analysis of any character that doesn't adhere to strict tradicional cis gender roles and transmascs headcanons are anti intelectual media illiterate misogyny, homestuck can't be just a popular old webcomic you still like despite It's flaws (like srly It has a shit ton of racism and ableism, it was created on the era of the internet 4chan was more culturally relevant than ever in memes mostly so of course) no It's not a pillar of queerness in fiction and media and the comics created by a literal feminists trans ally buch need to somehow be morally inferior because they're both compiting in a Tumblr poll

AHAHAHAHAHAHA SHE'S STILL DOING IT TOO

I'm sorry, but imagine having this much of a grudge over your fave losing a poll lmao lmao lmao lmao this is so funny oh my God.

But it's especially hilarious because all of what she wrote about June is complete nonsense that was never part of the text. Now let's look at what she had to say about transmasc headcanons:

Welcome to projection playground, ma'am! She's literally using the idea of "legitimate analysis" just to prop up her own headcanon. This is so gutbustingly hilarious. Does she even think it's possible transmascs could have headcanons based in 'legitimate analysis'? Considering the fact that she seems to vehemently insist literally every transmasc headcanon ever is actually transfem, probably not, right? Because she doesn't understand masculinity is revolutionary and transgressive for people who weren't assigned it? Because she's a self-centered moron?

But wait, there's more!

She's so consumer-brained and she doesn't even know it.

I love that her whole personality is structured around being the world's most obnoxious Homestuck fan who uses academic language to build a comfort blanket to soothe her insecurities and lash out at others because it's gender validating if she gets to lash out at trans men the way cis women are allowed to with cis men. Except I've never seen a cis woman do it this ineptly, or so blatantly the product of issues they desperately need to work out.

Anyway, back to Bechdel...

I know I've been ranting about this subject in a general, undirected way all morning, but I'm going to tell you that this is a problem with Plaidos, specifically, which she passes on to her audience:

They don't know what TERFs are.

A TERF has defined political views. There is a lot going on with them. You cannot take one belief or action in particular, such as Bechdel softly supporting some sex-segregated spaces, and call her a TERF when she's praxis in much bigger, material ways. It's not just about Homestuck with Plaidos, or TERFs in general. It's also about the fact that Bechdel ever did anything that had anything to do with the idea that some people are more wymynly than them, which they take personal offense to that overshadows, oh, I don't know, loud and consistent advocacy for children having access to HRT? Any real transfeminist would recognize that matters infinitely more. But with these people, that's not the issue. They don't care about anything but how badly it hurt them to hypothetically not be welcome to a shitty music festival, and Bechdel having went - even if she criticized it's policies - is basically the same as having flaunted her gender assignment to intentionally make them dysphoric.

But Bechdel supports minors getting HRT. She supports them being in women's bathrooms. A lot of TERFs have identical conversations about her.

So what makes her a TERF? Because she went to a party you weren't invited to?

Do you understand how pathetic this makes you look?

It's gross and TERF-y to say trans women as a category are jealous of people AFAB on some level but when you prioritize like this where being let into the club is the one big all-consuming deal over things like Bechdel repeatedly going to bat for minors having HRT, and they obsessively treat trans men the way they do...

Like, listen. TRFs. My friends. You're women. I promise you you're Trve Wymyn. Please get over not having been AFAB. Come to peace with it and accept that people who got what you want are on your side and are happy to support you in being recognized as a woman in spite of what was on your birth certificate. Get over it.

Just get over it.

And also get over your transfem headcanons not being any more textually supported than transmasc headcanons, losers. You're so obviously the ones addicted to seeing yourself reflected in every piece of media you consume if you have to write essays about how it's bad literary analysis to not believe in your strings-on-a-thumbtack-board shit and run down anyone else having headcanons related to their identity. You're not doing literary analysis, you're playing pretend with cartoons for children and getting upset when you see other people having their own fun without you.

One last thing:

EXTREMELY holy shit racist. Do you see what I mean? How TRFs care so much about slights to their Trve Wymynhood over all else that they say shit like this? Like yeah Michfest was basically the KKK, you're right, unimaginably stupid White woman. Remember when Lisa Vogel hung all those trans women to warn us not to vote?

[utilitycaster]

Here’s my C3 hot take: I think Matt just messed up. I think att just didn’t do a good job DMing this one, and I’m sad but I don’t think the players could have solved the problems entirely on their own. The lack of a session zero makes no sense, but more to the point I think Matt just has to much Catholic Trauma tm to have told this story. His blind spot to religion v. Personal worship in his world building is to big to stick this one. His excitement about the culmination of these narratives after 9 years made him play story beats to close to his chest looking to surprise and shock his players, and also, because he was so tied to it, he didn’t pivot, or change the story to guide the players through. The pacing, especially at the beginning feels like he was entirely to excited to get to the clever plot.

Honestly… and this makes me sad, a lot of the issues feel like he sort of started believing his own mythology. I am so happy for him to be self confident but this all feels like a story guided by someone who thinks their terribly clever and so don’t have to rely on the same level of hard work, collaboration, prep, planning etc. of previous works (and also wanted to be novel, I just think of their original campaign announcement where they said “anything might happen” and sigh a little).

My bit of hope? That’s a really easy thing to come back from! I hope they reflect and improve going forward!

p.s. this isn’t to say the others couldn’t have made things BETTER, they could have, for sure.

Hi anon,

I disagree with most of this. Most crucially, this is not the form of campaign I think would come of Catholic religious trauma. Matt's mentioned he was raised nominally Catholic but he's also mentioned his parents were artists, hippies, and D&D players, and he seems to be on pretty good terms with them. I think this is a vast overstep on your part that came from basically nowhere, especially since the logical outcome of a Catholic Trauma campaign would in fact be one that actually did portray Vasselheim as a vast controlling force within the world regulating the worship of the gods across it. A pretty massive hole in the worldbuilding, at least as this campaign demands we see it, is that we really haven't seen religion as an oppressive force except in one highly specific case, and even that was spearheaded by mortals and not the gods and is indistinguishable from a purely political land grab. Like, the blind spot you mention is actually a sign that he was not raised particularly religious; someone who was raised strictly Catholic would be extremely aware of religion as a highly organized hierarchy with clear rules and a vast worldwide network and not "a few missionaries who didn't kill anyone or even forcibly convert anyone, Vasselheim seen as a good meeting spot for a worldwide conference, and Ludinus's grievances are all highly personal." Like, the Catholic Trauma version of Exandria has Vasselheim at war with the Empire for their banning of half of the prime deities, or going full Inquisition/Crusade on Hearthdell.

I want to be clear: when I accuse fans of projecting religious trauma it's because they outright have said shit like "I always like when a narrative kills the gods bc I'm a white southerner who was raised Christian". I do not say it just because they are affiliated with a specific religious denomination.

I also don't think the issue is so much believing his own mythology as much as the one major correct thing you said, which is the lack of not just a session zero but a heavy hand in character development, coupled with a very specific plot he wanted for this campaign. Campaign 1 worked because he tailored a campaign heavily to the interests and stories of the characters, and built a world around them. Campaign 2 similarly allowed for that same give-and-take; characters like Trent and Uk'otoa and Marion and the Gentleman came from the backstories the players came up with. Some of the players' ideas were changed as part of that heavier hand in character creation. The guidance for that campaign (morally gray and complex) was actually accurate, and when the characters took a sharp turn away from the planned story, Matt was able to pivot quite gracefully.

The problem really is that it's clear Matt had a very developed vision of this campaign and didn't realize that the characters of Bells Hells largely failed to fit within it. I don't think hard work wasn't done (I think there was in fact a TON of prep that we haven't seen, eg, I 100% believe Matt has an extensive amount of work done on Otohan, Ozo Cruth, Marquet, the Apex War, etc that Bells Hells simply did not see); I think, in fact, that like three hours of work that probably would have resulted in scrapping or drastically changing the characters to fit the intended story would have fixed the vast majority of problems here. It is only, frankly, because the characters are such a bad fit that the issues we're talking about (little establishment of organized religion vs. personal practice) even became issues! But it's literally that - it's not realizing that even a longform campaign can live or die on character creation. It might even be that too much prep was done ahead of time and he was too unwilling to abandon it.

[nikoniclove]

okay I rewatched greys anatomy and had an idea for a cute little one shot maybe for different kinds of firsts? I think it would be set very early into their relationship, Ace still tries to settle in at the bau and it starts to snow. She gets all excited and maybe a little emotional about it, given that she was in war zones the last few years and missed the snow.

Inspired by Lexies scene in s5 e1: “the snow! It’s so pretty, it’s like a fairytale.”

I don’t see Ace getting that emotional or openly soft but maybe a little?

First Snow

It’s cliched to say you can smell it in the air, but it feels that way. You watch the weather app like a hawk, repeatedly refreshing it to make sure you’re getting the most up-to-date information. Emily brings you a fresh cup of coffee, complete with a smile. She sits on the edge of your desk, her black heeled boots knocking your filing cabinet slightly. “What are you looking at on your phone every ten minutes?”

 

“It’s supposed to snow,” you answer offhandedly, splitting your focus between the file and the weather app.

 

Emily nods, tracing the lip of her mug. She’s trying to figure you out, learn something new about you. It’s not a bad thing. You’re just not used to people being interested in getting to know you. History tells you to keep all personal information close to the chest. “You like snow?”

 

“Not really. Sort of.”

 

She tries again, twisting your chair with her foot. “You’re checking the weather with that kind of frequency because you don’t really like snow?” You frown at her, unsure of what to say. Her head tilts to the left, a curious and encouraging look on her face. “Is the bullpen not the place for this conversation?”

 

“No, it’s not that. It’s just snow.”

 

“Do you want to go walk outside?”

 

“It’s the middle of the work day, Em.”

 

Her smile is so kind like she’s guiding you through something with the patience of a saint. “This isn’t a prison. You can take a break and go walk outside. C’mon. Get your coat.” You’re hesitant. It seems like a silly reason to leave your case files unattended. “It’s okay. C’mon. I’ll go with you.”

 

When you’re bundled up in your coat and gloves, you follow Emily through the elevator bank and out the lobby. Away from the bureau building even slightly, Emily slips her hand in yours. “So snow,” she prompts.

 

“I was deployed the last few winters. Not a lot of snow in the Middle East,” you explain quietly, your gaze stuck on the cracks in the sidewalk as you walk side by side with your girlfriend. That’s still a fairly new word. You’re not used to it yet. You feel like you’re constantly making stupid mistakes and needing to be taught the ropes of being a civilian, being in a relationship, having sex, all sorts of things. Snow seems like a very easy thing to share, and you fight your instinct to keep it closed away. “I don’t really like the cold or the snow. I can’t do the activities I like the way I like them when it snows, but I missed the snow the last few years I guess.”

 

Emily squeezes your hand in a wordless thank you for letting her in even a little bit. “I get it. The holidays we spent in Middle Eastern embassies always felt more sterile.” You pause, looking up at the sky. You can feel it. It’s in the air. “Tonight or tomorrow night, when it’s had time to accumulate, you and me, we’ll get some hot chocolate and go walk in the fresh snow.”

 

You can’t help the smile that splits across your face. Emily tugs you off the main sidewalk into a slight enclave. Her leather glove is worn and smooth against your cheek. “Yeah, that sounds nice.”

 

“Maybe if I kiss you in the snow, I can change your opinion about it. It can be wonderful, beautiful. Just like you.” Your teeth pierce your bottom lip, as the embarrassment of the compliment drapes over you like a blanket. It warms your cheeks and the tips of your ears with a deep red. “What?” Emily nudges your nose with hers. “Blushing because your girlfriend thinks you’re pretty?”

 

“Em,” you exhale nervously. “We should… we should get back to work.”

 

“Okay, my love.”

 

“Can I ask you something?” 

 

“Anything.” You fidget with the buttons on your jacket instead of looking at her. You want to know why Emily calls you that. You found the nerve to ask JJ about the pet name she uses for you back when you were just sleeping with them. “It’s okay,” Emily encourages. “I’ll do my best to answer honestly. If not, I’ll tell you why I can’t.”

 

“Why do you call me that? Love? Or my love? JJ started calling me ‘baby’ the first time I slept with you. She said it just slipped out.”

 

“Two questions,” Emily starts. “Do you want me to stop? Do you remember the first time I called you love?”

 

“No and yes.”

 

“You do?” Emily is surprised by that. It was a kindness and a familiarity you didn’t expect. It took you by surprise then, but you were focused on more body related things. You wouldn’t have brought it up then either, too afraid to rock the boat. “When did I say it? I honestly don’t remember.”

 

“You invited me over after I pulled the muscle in my back. You told me to use my words and called me love.”

 

“Wow, so a really specific memory then.” You shrug lopsidedly. “Did it freak you out when I called you that?”

 

“I mean, no, I guess. I didn’t stop you from saying it, and we still… you know… slept together.”

 

“Did you want to stop me? Or stop us from having sex?”

 

“No. I know the difference between pushing slightly outside of my comfort zone in the name of growth and being wholly uncomfortable. I just… I don’t understand why you chose that one. It’s so… personal.”

 

“I’d say we’re pretty personal, love,” Emily says teasingly with a wink.

 

“Yeah. But not then.” Her tongue peeks out to lick her lips as she compiles the answer she wants to give. “You said you’d be honest. The real answer, Em. Not the politically correct one you’re working towards.”

 

One corner of her lip pulls into a surprised smile. “Honestly. Okay. Even then, I could see some of your history on your skin, and I could make my own deductions based on your time with the team. I wanted to give you every bit of love you didn’t have in whatever way you would let me - friendship, team, romance, whatever. It felt right and you didn’t seem to mind, so I let the pet name sink into my language. Do you like the pet name?”

 

You nod, letting her answer sift through your brain. It’s unusual. It’s not your experience, but you’re slowly recognizing that Emily and JJ aren’t like people in your past. And that’s a very good thing, even if you’re slow to let yourself warm up to it.

 

“Hey,” Emily murmurs, pulling you to a stop again on the sidewalk. “Look up.”

 

Your palms flat, you look at the tiny specks of snow landing on your gloves. They won’t stick yet, but they’re here. “It’s snowing,” you sigh contentedly.

 

“It is,” Emily beams. “You look happy.”

 

“I do?”

 

“You’re smiling, love. An honest-to-God smile.”

 

“I… umm… sorry, it’s probably silly. I guess I just missed the snow more than I thought,” you shrug self-consciously.

 

“Not silly at all. C’mon. We’ll enjoy it as we walk back to work, and tonight, we’ll go out with our hot chocolate. You can breathe in the fresh snow and the crisp air.”

 

“And you’ll kiss me in the snow?”

 

“My love, I’ll kiss you absolutely anywhere.”

 

As you stop at a traffic light, you watch the way the little snowflakes land in her dark hair. The snow with Emily… it feels kind of like a fairy tale.

[thebreakfastgenie]

There is also something about the combination of the TikTok algorithm and the short video format (which makes it feel more intimate and makes people think of the poster as a trusted friend, mostly subconsciously so they don't even realize it) that makes TikTok an even more effective vector for misinformation than social media generally. People get "education" on tumblr too (longtime users will flinch if you say "*steeples fingers*") and it's bad here too, but it's a whole other level on TikTok.

A lot of boomers fell for misinformation when they were younger, but the methods for delivering it weren't as effective back then. A lot of them got their brains melted by Fox News in middle age, and we thought 24/7 cable news was the scariest vector for misinformation. Then social media happened. Boomers who use social media fall for stuff left and right on Facebook, but fewer boomers use social media compared to younger people (because it's quickly become an expected part of the social scene so it's hard to resist even if you're not especially interested, and of course the pandemic didn't help) and even fewer use(d) TikTok. I do think young people are more likely to think they're immune to online misinformation and carry that false sense of superiority. I think a lot of people in my age cohort go too far with "millennials are the only ones who smart/safe/free," but I think there's some truth to the idea that the generation who watched all this happen, who started on the early internet (when very few older people used it and the ones who did were mostly highly educated) and transitioned to social media and experience the evolution of it into its current state firsthand are somewhat better equipped to avoid misinformation. Don't get cocky though, we're online with everybody else, we need to be vigilant.

It is genuinely just disturbing the extent to which people who mocked and laughed at the Facebook boomers for being gullible idiots are now gorging themselves willingly on the kinds of lies that I think even Facebook Boomers would pause at with no self-awareness or care whatsoever.

Yeah it is disturbing. Falling for lies and propaganda and misinformation is a universal problem. I remember before tiktok was even a thing complaining about people mocking Facebook boomers while falling for stuff on tumblr. Everyone thinks they're above it and everyone is wrong!

[canmom]

assorted TTRPG things

nugget from the tab bonfire: at some point I was reading about RPGs. some things that are old, some are new(ish). here are some links, since I think they are interesting, and some additional comments.

first-up: my own RPG posts are now archived here. that section of my site is looking a whole lot more fleshed out now.

1. ritual

in 2021, Meguey Baker wrote this one about 'ritual in game design', fitting TTRPGs into her frame of faciliating rituals for essentially therapeutic purposes, aimed at parents. since I like talking in a vaguely (vaguely) anthropological way about the analogies between TTRPGs and other activities (improv comedy, kink, wrestling), this is very relevant.

by Meguey's definition, a ritual is defined through this series of words: intentional contained conscious creative action. of course, she gives these words fairly specialised definitions. she's mostly interested in addressing TTRPGs that go into tough, bleedy places, described in books like Alice Is Missing, BFF, and Bluebeard’s Bride - of these I'm only familiar with the third but I'm kind of aware of the genre of game she's talking about. she suggests that these principles don't really apply if you're just playing to hang out and have a good time, but to my mind, just because you're less formal about it doesn't mean that's not an aspect of ritual, and the analysis is similarly applicable there, just lower-stakes.

in fact I think a whole lot of human activities are rituals (classic bryn move to grab a conceptual hammer and start seeing nails everywhere). the analogy goes the other way too, rituals are kind of like games.

I'm not entirely convinced the breakdown into jargon words really does a lot for me, but the crucial thing here is the sort of entering and exiting into a constrained social space which has its special set of rules. meguey writes these cool little coloured lists which depict the various stages of getting you into a game/ritual headspace and exiting it afterwards...

...and specialises it to the case of roleplaying games as you see. it's pretty BDSM-like isn't it? sure, that's something I'm currently interested in, I recently read The New [Topping/Bottoming] Books, but it certainly does suggest that analogy strongly for me; I think a general recognition that RPGs should have aftercare would do a lot more for the scene than a lot of the other 'safety tools' like X-cards and so on. (a weaker analogy is the principles of animation: anticipation, action, follow-through.)

this idea of ritual also strongly parallels the definition of 'play' of roger callilois:

1. it is free, or not obligatory 2. it is separate from the routine of life, occupying its own time and space 3. it is uncertain, so that the results of play cannot be pre-determined and the player's initiative is involved 4. it is unproductive in that it creates no wealth, and ends as it begins economically speaking 5. it is governed by rules that suspend ordinary laws and behaviours and that must be followed by players 6. it involves make-believe that may be set against 'real life'.[6]: 100–101 

as a set of traits which describe a somewhat fuzzy sphere of activity. meguey's account of 'ritual' focuses more on the set of steps you follow to enter and leave the ritual space, but it is describing, I think, a heavily overlapping 'thing'.

why so explicitly break down a process that most people seem to come by naturally? well, probably for the same reason that kink people do it: the more you play with [emotional] fire, the more care you must exercise to keep it contained. but it is also pretty important, I think, to pursue some degree of ritual for the middle part to actually work. you need to switch mental gears first to get yourself operating in 'game space'. same goes for a number of other 'spaces' for that matter. in RPGs we already have plenty of rituals: getting set up around the table (for offline games), general chitchat beforehand to get us feeling social with the other players, the brief summary of the previous session to mark the transition into RPG mode...

one non-obvious extension that Meguey makes, in the third excerpt above is to the actual text of RPG books, in terms of how they are presented to the reader. I think this is genuinely quite an insight - when you read a book you get into RPG space a bit and imagine playing the game, building up the fantasy of what playing it will entail (c.f. what's the book for, part 3).

though, that said - it is tricky to pursue a strict ritual structure in presentation, I think, because I think RPG books tend to be read very non-linearly. only quite short games tend to get read cover-to-cover in one sitting. otherwise you tend to skip to the part that you need. still: the manner of presentation is very important to an RPG book serving its purposes. and this is a fascinating frame for it.

I'm not sure this essay necessarily gives a new direction (as a designer or a player), but it does give an interesting angle to understand things I was already doing previously, and do them a little more deliberately.

for example, when I make a point of mentioning moments that I enjoyed in the time after an RPG session before we all part ways, that is the 'return/celebration' part of the ritual, and crucially it reassures everyone that even if they were playing an unpleasant character or there was inter-character conflict in the session, it was something I was looking for and appreciated. I do this because there have been times when I've felt a bad kind of bleed, fearing that my character was 'too much' and was detracting from the session, or that a conflict in-character reflected an OOC conflict. having an explicit affirmation helps drive away those fears.

2. rule zero in D&D

this history of 'rule zero' in D&D editions dates all the way back to 2012 (although it seems to have been updated since), but it's still very relevant to my current efforts to understand RPGs, books, and all the weird practices around them, the role of 'rulings' in OSR, etc etc.

right off the bat, I appreciate the nuances that this early paragraph expresses:

The attitude towards rulings vs. rules in the game shows up  - directly and explicitly in the rules text - implicitly in the text and detectable via textual analysis  - in the surrounding publications considered semi-canonical (Dragon magazine, nowadays forums and designer blogs), and  - the culture of gamers surrounding it.

while the rest of the post is still focused on what books say rather than what people did with those books, it's a relief when people note that there is a difference.

so, the essay traces a general evolution of ideas about what role the rules in the book are supposed to follow as D&D moved away from wargaming and passed through the hands of different publishers. how much interpolation and discretion the DM is supposed to apply to the text, how authoritative they're supposed to be at their own table compared to the non-DM players...

it's fascinating to observe how the culture of the game evolved. it's also tricky to distil the different currents down into a brief summary - I tried and realised I was just recapping the article in less detail. luckily the author wrote a summary so I can just quote that:

0e – the referee is an aribiter and fills in the gaps 1e – the DM is large and in charge, the rules are pretty good, your players are at both’s behest B/X and 2e – the DM and players are both important, the rules are super mutable 3e/early 3.5e – the rules and players and DM are leveled out in importance, meaning rulings are minimized and a negotiation with players BECMI/late 3.5e/4e – the rules are pretty fixed and players and DM are equal and subject to the rules as law; RAW is an option OSR and Pathfinder – splitting off in their own directions in reaction to 4e, OSR back to a mix of 0e and B/X flavored attitudes and Pathfinder to a hybrid of 1e/2e/3e attitudes 5e – The DM is clearly in charge and can ignore/change rules and rolls as they deem wise, with the goal of everyone having fun (as opposed to the sometimes-stated 1e goal of “keeping the players in their place”.) It reincorporated a lot of the 1e and 2e thinking into the game to an even greater degree than Pathfinder. PF2e – Effectively back to 3e positioning fairly exactly. It stepped back away from where PF1e and 5e were going and got a little less enthusiastic about GM authority, carefully scoping it to interpretation and, sometimes, changes to make things fun. Maybe a *little* more towards 5e than 3e was, but only by a hair.

anyway, there are a couple of interesting points I want to pull out of the discussion. first is this insightful comment on the broader implications of rules that grant abilities - something to discuss further in a later post...

The problem with [D&D 3.5e's claim that you can try anything and the rules only govern chances of success] from a textual interpretation standpoint is that it’s hard to not interpret the raft of “possibility” options in the 3e branch of D&D as being restriction of options. I can try to throw my opponent in a grapple – until a feat comes out that says “In a grapple, you can now throw your opponent.” Thus despite mitigating statements by the designers, their design itself passively promulgates an approach to the rules as written.

there's also an interesting line about how 'old school' the OSR actually is, answer being that it's complicated.

Some, however, consider this to be a bit of a retcon of how old school gaming actually worked. As you can see from this research, it is and it isn’t – the “rulings vs. rules” concept was very strong especially in B/X and 2e, somewhat less so in 0e/1e, and actively militated against in BECMI. Hackmaster and the Knights of the Dinner Table comic prominently parody the not uncommon rules-adherence mode of play in AD&D. As all nostalgia does, the Quick Primer picks certain elements out of the past to bring back and leaves aside some other elements.

finally, we have this comment about the (then very new) 5th edition approach to framing its rules:

It also appears to take a hint from the OSR’s formulation of “rulings, not rules” as well as the prominent fiction-first modern indie games like Apocalypse World when it describes the basic pattern of play – 1. The DM describes the environment 2. The players describe what they want to do (and the DM decides how to resolve those actions – importantly, the PCs don’t decide what rules they use) 3. The DM narrates the results

...which is somewhat true to my experience of 5e, although I think there is still a fairly significant component of 'I use this ability on my character sheet' in the game (I use this weapon, I cast this spell, I use this special ability). So the players do often decide what rules they want to invoke. Although, that is also true of Apocalypse World - something to go into another day.

mostly I think it's really helpful to have a proper sense of the space of practices represented by D&D, since popular discourse (including the game's rulebooks) way too often seems to assume there is only one way that D&D is played. this is a good stab at exploring some of the dimensions, and will definitely inform whatever is the next investigation I make into the structure of RPGs.

for another angle on D&D history, I came across this old (2016) ENWorld post tracing how Gygax got increasingly proprietary and litigious with D&D, and hostile to people putting their own spins on it.

it seems like for more on this topic of early RPG history I should be taking a look at The Elusive Shift by John Peterson, so posssibly more to come on this subject when I get round to reading that one.

3. blorb

I came across Sandra Snan's website, idiomdrottning.org, which is another one of those classic static-site treasure troves of someone's thoughts on everything for like the last decade.

like me, she came back to playing trad games like D&D after spending a while exploring the storygames milieu. She landed on a set of practices relating to the concreteness of the setting, in explicit opposition to 'no myth'-style games where anything not stated out loud is fair game to be modified for the sake of narrative.

she calls this 'blorb', and as these things tend to, it gets something like a manifesto. many other articles on this site talk about various facets of roleplaying games are written about on the site in relation to this.

'blorb' focuses on the relationship between preparation and improvisation: making a big show of referring to things on paper, and making decisions in the open, to reinforce the sort of metanarrative that there is an underlying reality even if it hasn't fully been discovered yet. it emphasises more granular simulation over abstraction.

since it's a little hard to navigate Sandra's archives, I've gathered the posts that are relevant to the subject here:

the chasm width problem (motivating, raising the issue that few games explicitly address the how of DMing)

blorb principles

realism and blorb (which discusses the other name 'klokkverk' used elsewhere in the milieu, and compares it to 'no myth') + the fictioneers talk about blorb again

radically transparent DM-ing

say the DC

antiblorb

GM-less roleplaying games

a blorb thought

the quest queue

there's probably others but these are the main ones I read

for contrast, no myth, a somewhat overlapping and somewhat very different paradigm of games that broadly sums up the norms of the Forge/'story games' tradition.

to sandra, 'blorb' is a statement of the type of roleplaying she finds vastly more satisfying to operate, and the crucial elements to make that happen.

what I find interesting about blorb is that, since its main interlocutor is the Forge/story-games tradition, it puts a fair bit of discussion into how this affects the fiction in practice. e.g. what you should prepare and what you can still improvise, and how the existence of the 'gloracle' (the combination of prepped materials and dice/rules, and rigour in consulting them) shapes our notion of 'the fiction'.

via this post, vincent baker back in 2012 defined RPGs thus:

To me, the crucial feature that makes a game an RPG is that it works by the (so-called) lumpley primple: in order to play, we have to create fictional stuff and agree that, for gameplay purposes, it's true. This is a pretty technical and inclusive definition. It includes Once Upon a Time and that game where you sit in a circle and pretend that some of you are werewolves, for instance.

something I find very interesting RPGs is the process of 'synchronisation' of the shared fiction. the idea of 'shared fiction' is something of an elaborate illusion. every player has a different version of it, with different emphases, different things that are fresh in memory, different interpretations of the images...

consider verbal descriptions of locations. my sense of what is in a scene will constantly be adjusted based on the stream of description I'm receiving from other players - the 'shared fiction' is at best something we approach asymptotically.

in an extreme example, a DM could lead with an elaborate description of the architecture, decorations, and layout of the room, before wrapping up with 'and curled around the central pillar is a mighty red dragon'. dun dun dun! suddenly, I have to recontextualise everything in the scene I was building in my head to accomodate the presence of the dragon.

the unreliability of this communications channel was a source for a vein of classic D&D humour, such as the Dread Gazebo of yore, where the communication channel breaks down leading to an inconsistency in the 'shared' fiction.

'no myth' and similar ideas come from the recognition that, until something is said out loud and enters part of the shared fiction, it can be changed freely between any possibility consistent with the 'established' facts. sort of like the wave function collapse algorithm. they take the attitude that you should do this deliberately to maximise drama and add complications, taking on more of a writer/director role. this character enters a bar, what should they encounter there? it would be fucked up if they encountered their ex, right? ergo their ex is there.

there is a degree of this in every RPG, not just your high-improv post-Forge story games. in order for some sort of consensus to be reached, parts of it must be black-boxed and unpredictable. for example, if I am inhabiting a character, I have my idea of how they will act and what they're feeling and thinking about, and that's authoritative. but that means for everyone else's characters, I have my impressions and predictions, but they're subject to being updated as soon as that player speaks.

for Sandra, this recognition that everything is getting moved around for drama undermines the substance of the world - an inescapable awareness even if the players take pains to make the established, spoken-out-loud fiction consistent.

so, additional 'authority' is central to the 'blorb' playstyle. that is, in addition to each player's authority to make up stuff within their domain (e.g. what their character does), you make a big point of deferring to some additional authorities such as pre-prepped material and dice (which Sandra calls the 'gloracle'), and making it explicit to the players that you're doing so. for example, you might talk about the random encounter tables you're using and what would change their contents, or declare the DC before every roll.

it's kind of a defensive style of DMing, in that it's entirely designed to forestall any suspicion of 'fudging' behind the scenes. the tradeoff is: more explicit discussion of game mechanics which might detract from the sort of 'atmosphere', but equally a stronger sense of inhabiting an external world where things are 'really' happening 'offscreen'.

to me, the idea of 'fudging' doesn't bother me nearly as much as it seems to bother Sandra, but I think there is some truth to the thought that if everything is subject to random tables or pure off-the-dome improv, the game can start to feel a very homogeneous. as Sandra puts it in one of her articles:

I don’t want to expand randomly as we go either, because if everything is randomly rolled as you go along, where’s the agency? South becomes the same as north becomes the same as west because wherever you go, the dice are furnishing for you, so the choice about where to go matters less.

it's probably got something to do with information theory, right? once you become familiar with the table, and you know when the table will be invoked, you've broadly found out what there is to know about that thing. there are only so many bits of information.

I was saying the other day, games are interesting because they are something to explore through interacting with them to discover all their weird nuances. players are pretty good at sniffing out how complex and varied the underlying system is. a wide set of interesting, spicy locations - and logical relations between them - has more nuances to discover than a random table with, say, 10 entries.

the problem is of course that such a prep-focused playstyle can lead to huge amounts of 'wasted' effort fleshing out elements of the gloracle which may never be activated, especially if players don't spend their time rubbing against your creation in various ways to discover its nuances. Sandra's approach is to work out what's easy to improvise on the fly (the 'wallpaper') and what is crucial to pin down in advance, and largely prepare the latter - the difference, I guess, coming down to experience. we can think of it in programming terms: a small authoritative state and things that can be derived from that.

in my experience, at least some players have become a lot more considerate of the workload of GMing. far from trying to resist 'railroading', they will often generally deliberately try to steer themselves towards whatever location a DM has prepared as a courtesy; meanwhile the GM will be able to get a sense of where the players are planning to go so they can prep between sessions. however, that is contrary to the more 'sandboxy' approach where the core appeal is 'you can do pretty much anything', which is what Sandra is trying to generate I think.

I'm too much of an improv-focused GM to really become a partisan of 'blorb' - for me, discovering improv-oriented story games after D&D was as revelatory as discovering D&D after storygames was for Sandra lol. I trust somewhat in my ability to come up with weird interesting stuff on the fly and flesh it out later, and I tend to find the moment of being in the hotseat of an RPG gets the creative juices flowing like nothing else, so it's actually quite difficult to come up with anything good during prep.

however, I think there is a lot to be said for the value of making at least certain things concrete, and communicating that to the players, and Sandra makes a good case for showing your hand. it's a way to make the shared fantasy take on certain qualities it won't have if it remains purely arbitrary improv, even if the only real functional difference is when you make something up. both because it's hard to keep track of everything in your head without some kind of aid, and because the first idea you come up with will rarely be the richest, most interesting.

so next time i run a game, I'm not going to take such a zero-prep, all-improv approach, but try and work a bit harder on 'overall consistency'.

definitely a provocative blog to encounter...

[sirxlla]

Such an Integral Piece

----------------‐-------------------------------

Warnings: Fluff

Prompt: introducing your cat to Dick's dog Haley (request: @runnergirl234 also I love this idea it's the cutest thing ever and I hope you also have a great day)

Notes: female reader, italics are actions and thoughts.

-With that said it's all under the cut-

The idea of you both moving in together was obvious, most nights one of your guys's apartments was empty because you would sleep over with the other person. It wasn't entirely ideal because of the animals but both of you didn't want to move too quickly in your relationships. That was nearly a year ago before you knew he was Nightwing.

Now Richard was staying at whatever apartment was closest after patrol and unfortunately that meant it was usually his. Sleeping in an empty bed just felt wrong at this point.

"Why don't you just move in? You shouldn't have to drive so far after a long day of work, I know the traffic in the city is not great around this time. I mean it's never great." Dick rubbed your back as you both laid in bed together.

"You're sure?" You asked as you played with his silky soft fluffy hair.

"I mean it would help me keep an eye on you but if you don't want to I entirely understand, I don't want to pressure you into anything." He leaned into your soft touches, closing his eyes with a groan.

"I mean I've been meaning to get away from the other job for a while anyways, If we can figure something out I wouldn't mind moving." Absentmindedly staring at the ceiling in the almost pitch black room.

"You mean that weirdo, David? Is he still coming around?" He asks about the weirdo that used to work at your job that kept stalking you.

"No, I think you scared I'm off but I'm really tired of looking over my shoulder and hoping that he's not there."

"I can find you a job pretty easily I mean hell you could probably work with me if you wanted."

"Isn't that like conflict of interest?"

"Not if we are actually working."

"I'd be down." Haley jumping on the bed to curl into your side.

"Then you're moving in." Cuddling into your chest, his face squished against your boobs.

"I am moving in" You smiled as sleep started taking you.

It was a bit of a process going through everything that you had acquired over time. You had that apartment since you were 18 so there was a lot to go through. It took about a week but you were getting everything settled and moved into Dick's place.

Once everything was in it's rightful place at his apartment the last but most important piece was your cat Frodo. Frodo is very affectionate and loving.

"Oh, God. I'm nervous."

"It's okay, Honey. Haley's got her mask on and I've got a hold of her." He's almost 100% sure she won't do anything to her but he wants to be sure.

"Well, here goes nothing." You brought Frodo's carry case over to Haley to let her sniff him. Frodo started hissing as Haley got super excited and playful which prompted Dick to make her sit.

"Be gentle Haley." He said to the sweet pitbull that listenss to every word that came out of his mouth.

"I guess we'll just have to give them time." You stated to Dick. After about 20 minutes of him in the crate you decided to let him out. Dick told Haley to come sit on the couch with him and she very quickly listened being such a well-trained dog. Once everyone calm down they seemed to as well.

The three of you saw on the couch and watched a movie while Frodo decided to go explore the house. After about an hour Frodo came back and surprisingly curled up next to Haley. You were half asleep against chest so you didn't notice but he sure did, he took a photo and posted it on Snapchat with the caption "my little family" which was a photo of you laying on his chest and the animals cuddling together. This was all that he hoped for when he was so happy that everybody was getting along.