#a lot of this is based on ideas we have about what constitutes certain people and i think it can be a fun observation

[uncanny-tranny]

You know, I feel like other trans people might get this, but it's honestly kind of refreshing when a cis person has, like, undeniable tboy/tgirl/whatever swag. It's like when you come across somebody who speaks the same language as you and you only find out when they start speaking it, too.

[cavegirlpoems]

So many TTRPG people, like yourself, seem to exist in a world where players don't actually enjoy the campaigns they're in, and don't actually like playing with the people they play with, and your whole approach to game mechanics seems like it's about trying to bribe these people to continue playing at a given table.

i have no idea where you get this idea from, I play a bunch of different games - including freeform text rp, fest larps, parlour larps, regular tabletop campaigns, longform play-by-post games and narrative wargames - and I have a lot of fun doing it. I wouldn't be a game designer if I didn't actually enjoy games. The thing is, if you study game design and ttrpg theory seriously, you think about the intent behind design decisions. Game design doesn't just happen by accident, the designer put a given rule in for a reason. So, you ask yourself why the designer made the game the way it did, and what they were trying to achieve.

A significant tool for game design is considering the feedback the game provides; what behaviours that ruleset rewards and what it discourages. (You can apply this analysis to other games, too, like video games). When I'm talking about a bribe, it's in that context; how does the game reward you for doing things, and what things does it reward. (For example, 'scrabble' rewards you for playing words with weird letters in them by making those letters worth more points.)

The thing is, ultimately, every game relies on a simple proposition; that if you volunterily use its rules, you will have fun. You don't need to follow the rules, and you can have fun without them, but the idea is that using the rules will let you have more fun, or a different type of fun, than if you didn't. (For example, throwing a ball around is a bit fun, but if everybody agrees to follow the rules of basketball, you get a different experience that a lot of people prefer). So, the only bribe you're making on the interpersonal, out-out-of-game level (unless something weird is going on) is "if we play this game it will be fun". When I talk about bribes and incentives, it's *inside* the game, after we've all agreed to the game's proposition of "if you use the rules, you will have fun".

Now, what counts as an incentive varies by game. Some, like Warhammer 40k, are challenge-based, and have ways to keep score of success and victory; here, things that signify overcoming the challenge are your incentives; how you get a high score, how you win, etc. Others, like most ttrpgs, are creative-based. What constitutes an incentive within the game's structure is less precisely defined. By and large, though, these incentives tend to be things like increased agency within the game fiction, space for creative expression, and experiencing and learning about more of the game fiction. (In this structure, 'being more mechanically powerful' can be thought of as a way of granting a player more agency, because their actions are more likely to succeed and result in the outcomes that they want. If the mechanical growth is lateral as well as vertical, then how to get more powerful is - itself - a venue for creative expression in what to prioritise, which is also a reward).

In the same way that you have the adage that 'restrictions breed creativity', the same goes for Fun. Limiting your scope from anything-goes freeform by voluntarily agreeing to use a set of game rules can produce similar results. Voluntarily limiting your agency in the fiction according to a set of game rules produces a friction that players of roleplaying games find enjoyable to push against. In this context, a reward structure within a game serves the useful purpose of signposting which direction you should push to get the fun kind of friction. A game which limits your options, and then gives you more options when you engage with certain behaviours, is telling you that those are the intended behaviours. Likewise, a game that limits your options even further when you do something is encouraging you not to do that. This is because game designs are not neutral and universal, they exist to create specific experiences. A game that rewards you by giving you more space for creative expression when you get in a fight - and gives you less space for creative expression when you avoid violence - is one that wants you to engage in violence, because it's designed to be a game where you have fun by fighting. This isn't bribing the players to sit down at the table and play the game; that has already happened outside the context of the game. They have already agreed to the game's offer of 'if you use these rules, you will have fun'. Rather, this bribing is within the game-space, the games mechanics encouraging the players to engage with it as intended, in the way that will be most fun. IE: these incentive structures are a tool the game uses to achieve the promise it makes; they guide the players towards the fun that they volunteered to have. Hope that makes sense. * * * Now, your initial ask is a weird take that's entirely unrelated to anything I've posted, and - particularly from an anon account- oddly antagonistic. I don't know if you're genuinely confused about game design, or arguing in bad faith. Either way, this probably doesn't merit the small essay I've produced, but have one anyway, it's always fun to clarify my ideas in written form.

[skeletal-butterflyy]

D&D subtext in Stranger Things

Highly, highly requested analysis (no it’s not) of some interesting things I noticed going on with D&D in stranger things. This includes my personal thoughts based on my credentials of; having watched the show more times than i can possibly count over the past 7 years and current knowledge of DnD classes, worldbuilding, monsters, character creation. I’ll have this on the pinned post on my blog and i’ll add a text break because it’s…a lot.

Misc. :

The show starts with and is based off of Dungeons and Dragons, a table top rpg that the characters like to play. In the first season we don’t get much insight into the boys characters or the game itself, it’s used as a device to further the idea that these kids are nerds, they play a nerdy game that involves fantasy and math. As the show progresses it continues to be used to push across certain ideas, like establishing each character in the party and in season three showing how the game might represent the boys as social outcasts and their childhood.

DnD, is used throughout the show but we get to see actual play of the game in season one and four. It’s also used as a way to name the monsters they face (the monsters do get the right ideas across but the game and show versions are actually quite different from each other, especially the demogorgon)

In season 4 the idea of satanism connected to DnD really interested me. Why was everyone connecting DnD to satanism? I mean we know that everyone thought that Eddie was killing all of these people but that doesn’t mean that his club had anything to do with it. The duffers interestingly incorporated the real stigma that was widely held in the 80s against the game. At the time people were going on witchunts against anything regarded as being possibly related to satan. The most interesting part about all of this though is that, Dungeons and Dragons was made by two very devout christian men, Ernest Gygax (one of the founders) was even a Jehovah’s Witness! The two being christian’s though, incorporated a lot of religious themes into the game including clerics and paladins (calm down you fiends i’ll be getting to that) who carry a lot of religious themes and monsters that may represent demons. Outsiders might have seen a game presenting such themes as a mockery of their faith or a way to promote satanism simply by having monsters.

Characters:

I want to preface this by saying the classes that I’ll be talking about aren’t actually time period accurate. The boys would have been playing D&D 1e which had the three classes of : Fighting-man, magic-user, and cleric. While the classes listed are from D&D 2e which didn’t come out until 1989. Anyways.

In season 1, in the first scenes of the show we get to see what is the middle of DnD session before it gets interrupted. We get the basic ideas of their game across, Mike acting as DM presenting the adventure he created to his players while the rest of the party waits in anticipation for what they have to fight next. We also get to see some of will’s drawings of the party and his character

Keep these pictures in mind.

In season 2 when mike and max are arguing in the gym we hear mike say, “I’m our paladin, will’s our cleric, dustin’s our bard, lucas is our ranger and el is our mage.” At first glance it seems like nothing, oh he’s just listing off the party members and their roles and how max doesn’t fit into the party. But when you look at it properly it’s so much more.

Lucas and Dustin could not be more perfect for their chosen classes. Lucas is a ranger which means the ideal stats to be highest would include dexterity, constitution, and wisdom. Dexterity refers to, in this case the hand eye coordination and general reflexes. Constitution refers to a characters stamina and toughness, and wisdom is well, wisdom. Sounds like a certain character that has quick reflexes, has a tendency to take punches pretty well, and has good problem solving skills huh? All of these apply to lucas quite well, AND his weapon of choice is a ranged weapon, the slingshot (wrist-rocket you know what I mean), it’s really quite perfect. As for Dustin, he’s said to be a bard and the highest ideal stat for that class is charisma. Dustin has been proven to be very charismatic, he gets along with people and he can very comedic. Another thing about bards is they will tend to be very eloquent, inspirational, and persuasive, it comes with the territory of having a high charisma score, and we know dustin has a way with words. Dustin’s known for being a an eloquent and persuasive character; he convinced Mike to make up with Lucas after their fight in season one, he convinced a hesitant Mr. Clarke to tell him how to make a censory deprivation tank, he convinced steve to join him in looking for dart, and convinced erica to go through the vents (sort of). So, it makes complete sense for dustin to be a bard.

Taking a look at Mike’s character, his class also makes a lot of sense. Mike plays a paladin when he’s not the DM. A paladin is a “devout warrior” they fight with a cause, to serve their patron deity. They’re often compared to knights because of their values and the armor they usually wear. A paladin is the perfect representation of mike, especially for how will described him during the painting scene, he’s a leader and will throw himself in dangerous situations for the sake of the party, like when he jumped off the cliff for dustin.

Now, remember how will’s drawings, specifically of his character? Remember how mike said that will was a cleric? Will’s character is complicated. Will’s character being a cleric doesn’t make sense but makes so much sense at the same time. His character doesn’t look like a cleric. Clerics might be spellcasters but they don’t traditionally carry a staff or wear robes like we see will’s character does. He wears wizard clothing and has wizard abilities, not to mention in the first scene we see him play DnD and attempt to cast fireball, a spell that is most commonly associated with wizards and sorcerers and he does not seem to get his magic from a deity like a cleric traditionally would. (Clerics can cast fireball but only if they are part of the light domain) So, his character seems to be more of a wizard than a cleric, which is odd.

My theory relating to Will’s character:

Looking back at what mike said, Will’s character class doesn’t make much sense. But, I personally feel like Mike wasn’t being totally honest. First, he listed el, who they might consider to be part of the party but she doesn’t have an actual role in the game, but of course she would be the magic-user/mage. I think that mike made the list based on his feelings about the party specifically regarding will and el. El has powers in real life so it makes sense he assigned her the role of mage, and replacing will for him to become a cleric. It’d be interesting if Will was simply a cleric in mike’s personal thoughts about the party because it would make it so mike views them as very close. Paladins and clerics are very similar in relation to the fundamentals, a paladin is a warrior that swears an oath and serves a deity while a cleric is the servant of a deity that heals and fights. Basically, a cleric does more spell casting and less fighting while a paladin does more fighting and less spell casting. Since the two are so similar it would give a lot of depth to the characters being best friends, who have a much deeper understanding of each other than the rest of the party would. And even if he wasn’t simply a cleric in mikes mind and will the wise is actually a cleric, this would still show that the two having a much deeper connection and understanding of each other was hinted at from the beginning.

[contemplatingoutlander]

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --James Madison,  Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785)

This is an excellent article by Timothy J. Sabo. It is a long article, but well worth reading. Sabo refutes all the claims by "Christian" nationalists that the Constitution was "inspired by God," and that the Founders wrote the Constitution based on a Christian understanding of God's will.

The BIGGER Lie is the misconception that the U.S. Constitution was “inspired by God.” Let me paint the picture for you. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness — that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” You know these words, right? They are NOT in the U.S. Constitution. They are from the Declaration of Independence. [...] The Founders had their own faith-based beliefs which varied greatly, but they did not incorporate those beliefs into the U.S. Constitution. While the Declaration of Independence strives to connect us with a Creator who guarantees “unalienable rights,” the Constitution never mentions either. [...] The Founders wrote a lot about liberty, and equality, but those were words meant for them — the white men who would rule the nation. These were concepts that were never supposed to come to fruition for those “undeserving” souls: the indigenous tribes, African slaves, and women.

Sabo goes on to show just how much the Founders believed "liberty, and equality" didn't apply to indigenous people, Blacks, and women--and how the "Christians" back then used the Bible to justify slavery, second class citizenship for women, and the right to conquer the "savages" who inhabited the land.

Sabo also refutes the idea that "unalienable rights" come from the Biblical God:

"When we compare the Word of God to the Laws of Man, the most interesting fact we find is that the God of the Bible never mentions any “unalienable rights.” Instead of granting Man rights, God laid out commandments for Man to follow; quite a big difference from what God demands and what the American government granted."

As further proof that the Founders did not consider the U.S. to be founded as a Christian nation, Sabo points to the 1796 U.S. Senate ratified Treaty of Tripoli, which states in Article 11:

If the Constitution — the foundational legal document of the nation — was inspired by God, why then are the Founders, just five years after ratification, stating that the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion?

Read the article for more debunks regarding the right-wing "Christian" nationalist belief that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by God and that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. But here's one last thought from Sabo:

The Founders were not “inspired by God” when writing the new Constitution. The truth is they were “inspired to keep God out of it.” What if America, the great nation “created by God for Christians” was created by men who decided to keep God out of the foundation of the nation? What if those Founders were not “inspired by God,” but instead were inspired to keep God out of the business of the government entirely?

_______________ *NOTE: The 100 million excess indigenous deaths in the Americas is an estimate. According to D. M. Smith (2017), some modern estimates can be as low as 70 million, although Smith estimated 175 million excess indigenous deaths in the Western Hemisphere from 1492 – 1900. Smith also estimated 13 million excess indigenous deaths from 1492 – present in the lands that now constitute the U.S. & Puerto Rico. All images (before edits) via source Thanks to @wtfnameisavailable for a comment on this post that led me to the above article by Timothy J. Sabo.

[jormofyore]

Codes of Honour and How They Are BS

Screw it, I’m going to talk about codes of honour in Pathfinder and D&D, and the intrinsic problem with them all.

            For those who are curious as my background, I’m an English major who has taken some medieval studies classes, and I loved them all. I often get into arguments with a “certain friend” who is often, what feels like, frequently up in arms about alignment and codes of honour. He’s particularly against how Paizo got rid of alignment. This time I’ll be talking about how we look at codes of honour in some of our favourite TTRPG’s and how they are all bullshit.

            See, the initial problem with Paladin’s and other classes with codes, is that we have this idea of what chivalry constitutes. But people are mostly wrong about the when of them. The code of chivalry, as it’s often applied in classic Western TTRPGs, goes back to around the 12th and 13th centuries Europe. That part isn’t controversial. The problem is that the only real written code we properly know of dates to 1884 from a French historian named Leon Gautier who read too many medieval romance novels and epics. This is kind of like how the code of Bushido is sort of 11th century, but also 19th century kind of recent. Point being, these codes we have are far, far more romanticized than what they originally were, and what we see them as now is likely not what they were when originally formulated. It’s not just a case of history being written by the victors in the case of Central and South American histories (I can’t/won’t speak of African codes of honour because that’s a huge weakness in my education.) In fact, we have no written records of the actual Code’s of Chivalry and its predecessors, we only have Gautier’s fanfiction. Arguably, these codes date somewhere into Ancient Rome, but that’s a little fuzzier and based on Roman storytelling as opposed to non-romanticized record keeping.

            This leads into the second problem. Whose code of honour are we using in TTRPG-land? These European codes of honour are abstract and what we know of are only from, again, poems and epics and modern revisionisms. Cultures from all over the world had codes of honour, and I guess, sure, you can default to European codes of honour for your western-themed game, but that means you’ve fallen into the idea of thinking Europe had one code of honour. Guess you fell for my trap card. Here’s the thing, there are, at the very least in Europe, 5 main codes of chivalry in Europe. I stress “at least.” Loosely, there are the ones from what we know now as the Germanic Tribes, the Frankish Tribes, the British and Welsh, the Italians, and the Saracens. We know of 3 official ones in some random dude’s poem Ordene de chevalerie, and even then, it’s mostly romanticized ideals from the crusades, which, last I checked, wasn’t where a lot of honour was happening. “So Jorm,” you argue, “Then we’ll use the British one because we all speak English in America, right?” Oh yeah, did you know the British one, from what we can gather, either condoned or endorsed slavery, whereas the other European codes explicitly did not? Doesn’t sound much like what a Paladin does, does it? Last I checked everything we come across in TTRPG’s is that Paladins hate tyrants and slavery, so have fun with this argument in the future.

            So, this is where I like Paizo’s approach with trying to distance themselves from Christianity and it’s influences in our game worlds. They simply got rid of alignment and the silly line “Act with honour” by instead detailing what rules every deity has (Edicts and Anathema, if you’re curious), and a list for what each kind of Champion stands for. Bang. Done. It’s quite a simple and elegant solution to get past these arguments while also getting rid of that abstract code of honour BS. Sure it’s “More rules”, but honestly, it reduces the number of arguments and lets you get into the meat of gaming.

            Anywho, while I would like to continue my rant on this topic, it’s after 3AM and I’ve got a game of Civilization 6 to finish before I sleep.

Jorm of Yore out

[yanderefairyangel]

I don't like talking about the 3H discourse however it helped me realize how a lot of people don't necessarily understand how politics in fiction works

To be clear, I am not accusing people of being stupid, but of favorising so much a reading over another they migh not be open minded about it.

So how does it work ? well, when it comes to politics and social situation, all depends on the setting which comes in 2 category : fiction set in a settings that is real and fiction set in a fictional setting.

In one case, depending on which country you place your story, you will have to deal with the political/social/economical situation of that country.

In the other, you will have to create them. And this means that because fiction, even if you take inspiration over a certain country for aesthetic and design, you can still mix it up with other country and whatever you want because it's fiction and it's up to you to set the rules. Therefore if we have to "study" the political/economical/social aspect in this type of fictional work, it's not research on the irl country, period etc that will help us study it, but only a close reading on the rules of this specific setting.

And I noticed that when people go by Eddie is indented to represent a mentality of left while Dima and Faerghus represent conservatism, they are using terms that are for the real world but that in Fodlan doesn't exist as such. The decision that the lords are making can't be based on how irl it might be translated but only on how effective they are for Fodlan based on the rules established for Fodlan. How each lord is able to answer to the problem of the continent and their respective country and which one is the most effective. That's the whole idea of 3H's narrative. It's not about irl events, it's only about what's happening in Fodlan.

Moreover, I noticed that some of the people trying to defend either side argue that 3H is a social commentary to defend this reading. However, might I remind you that 3H or if you prefer Fuukasetsugestu is originally a japanese game written by japanese people aimed at japanese people written in japanese language ?

Game can have a social commentary aspect, such as Persona 5 however, the author of Persona 5 are making a commentary about Japan, their country which is also the place they settled the story in. 3H doesn't take place in Japan, it takes place in a fictional setting mixing every country and culture together, however IS and KT's writing team is pretty much japanese. Even if they wanted to comment on social issues, it's more likely for them to comment on Japan's through very obvious reference that will speak to their jpn audience, hence the presence of buddhism in 3H and other Fe as well. And even if they migh try to make historical reference to the country that inspired the settings, nothing will change the fact that reading 3H as a social commentary on idk American society is a rather wrong reading. If anything, it should be read as a commentary on japanese society if you want to push the idea that 3H have a social commentary, not America. Why would the team of IS and KT refer to a country's politics and condition they do not live in and that are different from theirs ? America is a democracy with a president. Japan is a constitutional monarchy ruled by an Emperor. Their vision of concept such as left and right, traditionalist, conservative and liberalist are different from a western point of view. The weight of tradition and the social issues as well as the influence of religion and even alimentation and relation to food is not the same as us. If we want to see Eddie as the reflect of some social commentary, then we have to wonder what she represent to Japan since the writers are japanese. And even if you argue that she is from a European based setting. You will also have to take into account how the country her empire is based on deal with politics. And don't get me started on the anachronism since a lot of concept didn't existed yet. The conditions of someone in the Byzatine Empire were completely different then from someone living in the Italy of the Renaissance and even more different then our current area. If you insist on reading it as such, then you will have to make research on the different belief, challenges etc of the time.

But we can all agree that FE was never about historical accurency. Most of the social commentary are based on japanese views of the world, relationship etc. Whether they are aware of it or not the writers will glimpse some of that japanese life in their works, that's even why localization exist, to make us understand that by adaptating it to our culture, what we are familiar with.

Will this solves cultural dissonances problem ? Of course not. There are things that at it's core cannot be rendered.

Just to give a recent example. See Engage ? See Zephia ? Well, for some people her reason to have a baby seems dumb since she already had the Hounds. However, the point of view that Sombron expresses about family being only a matter of relationship through blood echoes to a very strict vision of family in Japan were family is only and strictly based on kinship through blood. This lead to adopted children to be rather frowned upon, in fact, those adoption are very rare. When people talk about adoption in Japan, in general they think of someone having adopted an adult man as their heir. It's called the Koseki system. And yes, that's the origin of the "we are not blood related" thing that FE has been doing since Awakening and Fates. While I wouldn't go as far as saying Zephia and Alear are intended to be social commentary on that matter, I think it's because of how this vision was so present for the original public that Zephia's reasoning was actually pretty sensible to their mind, but probably less to people who are now used with the idea that adopted children are as real family as blood children to their parents. And that's just on Japan, you have other society were the status of adopted children are vastly different but I digress.

In those condition, wanting to see Eddie and Dima or Claude and Rhea only from a westerned point of view under the claim that FE is Western inspired is pretty weak. It's referencing those culture yes, but ultimately as a Japanese product, it will mostly and mainly deal with things that speak to this audience then the Westernian one.

[moltengoldveins]

Alright, so writing sci-fi is a strange combination of wonderful and horrible. On the one hand, I know a lot of science and I’m decent at physics-based mathematics. I can grasp stuff quick and I don’t tend to write stuff that’s blatantly unscientific unless I decide to for the sake of vibes.  On the other hand….. ya girl has to put so much more effort into her work than she would if her perfectionist tendencies would let her handwave crap for the plot, so here’s a list of fun science stuff I’m fielding as ideas for Only We Will Remain- 

while space combat itself is absolutely nothing like the ww2 dogfights most sci fi bases them off of (no air resistance, no reason for individual fighters, scanners that can see enemies coming from literal lightyears, etc), NEBULA combat, as far as I can tell, should be a bit more familiar. Atmospheric or low-atmospheric conditions, mid-to-low visibility, interference with long distance scanners, and reason for individual fighters and pilots as opposed to capital ships whaling on each other. All I need is an excuse for the vast majority of hyperspace stops/populated areas to be around nebulae, say, oh…… hyperspace fuel is only found in nebulae? And I’m golden.

Warp jumps being as fast as they are in Star Wars or Star Trek feels unrealistic, even for a piece of technobabble. I don’t see why they wouldn’t be Significantly more complicated and require extended startup time. This allows for ambushes, captures, and, most importantly, piracy.

Pirates boarding a ship from the airlock? Idiotic and dangerous: they’d be dead in seconds, that’s a bottleneck the crew already knows about. The knife boarding ships from clone wars for the droids that punch at random thru the hull and deposit a group of fighters? Literally incredible, you just need something that’ll block the atmosphere from escaping. 

My main problem with sentient AI is the lack of a source for a soul. No I don’t know where or when exactly the human soul comes from or how it’s formed, I follow the Bible on principle but it doesn’t give details. So I’m left with a dilemma: AI are really frikken cool, I just don’t think I can justify their existence. BUT. I know that ensouled people come from other ensouled people because Babies Exist And Become People, and I know that if a human clone were to be made, I’m almost certain that they’d ALSO have a soul (tbh clone wars prevents me from having any other opinion) so, I think I could excuse a sentient AI if it were somehow, like, the clone or child of a person. With that thought, all sentient AI start as non-sentient AI implants in sentients’ brains and develop a separate soul at some point due to their connection to the person. No, nobody knows how this works. No, nobody is sure what exactly constitutes a ‘souled’ AI as opposed to an empty one. But I can’t conceive of a computer developing one spontaneously for no reason, so this is the next best thing. 

Literally why would you carry guns or blasters that could puncture metal in space that’s so dumb. I’m using blasters with electrical or plasma bolts that damage biological materials and disperse on denser materials because holy crap you can’t miss even one shot. What if a bullet goes through someone? You’re all cooked. 

[joviantwelve]

okay you said you had a pokémon fanregion in your head, and now i gotta hear all about that, is the thing

OH god actually it's really funny how much shit that was in it has come to pass in canon by now, because I originally conceptualized it circa gen 4. It's usually what I think about if I think of like pokemon fancharacters or whatever. here we fuckin go

It was based on the Holon region in the TCG which has pokemon with funny types. we have Tera types now... the idea was that it would be begin further expanding and adding its own League and whatnot. I put it as above Johto/Kanto so relatively gen 1&2 selection of mons. keeping it simple.

it was more about the Weird Type Shit, which the pokemon prof of the region was studying under an organization she was a part of (the evil team, which was not branded as "Team (x)" just like Aether Foundation lmao). anomalies to track down and whatnot. but they were also inducing it themselves and studying other detected anomalies in the region. or sometimes the experiments they did created new, unintended anomalies of their own

this was mostly to make Missingno canon. which is like the only thing that hasn't still come to pass yet (BUT IT SHOULD!!!!!!). my dearest darlingest Missingno, the entire reason I love glitches today, was effectively my box legendary. the backstory of the prof was much like Lusamine in that she saw this Fucking Weird Pokemon a long time ago due to her Experiments and it fucked her up and she became a weird bad anime mom afterward. SHE EVEN HAD A DEAD HUSBAND!!!!!!! I FUCKIN INVENTED LUSAMINE FIRST

oh I should mention the "protag" analogue of the region WAS the professor's child. SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you had to fight your mom. who is the prof. who is also the evil team leader. and corrupted by some messed up videogame code. damn that sucks

later when we started getting more AI-feeling Rotom characters, I imagined a Rotom in a more robot/android body as one of the team underlings. he was the protag's buddy back home but now he has to fight you :( sorry i dont wanna do this but my programming is telling me to (throws a pokeball out halfheartedly)

(ASIDE: I remember in the first movie when they were like flabbergasted at Mewtwo technically qualifying as a pokemon trainer. that was kinda fucked up and weird, can we go back to that? tbh when I think about it, a lot of the vibe of my fanregion is based on how Weird early pokemon gens felt. they really dont make it like this anymore. Ape Inc became Creatures, I'm certain some EarthBound talent factored in)

I think I was also imagining weird-typed versions of the legendary birds for a trio, which is funny cuz we got Galarian versions of them now too....

Hooke was originally a Pokemon OC and was my first one actually, he ran a Dark-type gym because one didn't exist in canon yet. he was ex-Team Rocket and moved up north to turn a new leaf. thought it fit Dark's vibe as like the Schemer Type. I had to wait amazingly long for an actual Dark-type gym in canon which is kinda funny. it actually felt a little sad when we finally got one because it had been 11 years since I had made Hooke in protest of this

if you remember my OC Serafine (she doesnt have a TH SORRY), she was also an evil team exec.

she doesn't have a modern analogue but another one of the fancharacters was the rival-type one and she was Lt. Surge's spoiled neice

the Ghost-type gym leader I can describe as a Super Nerd with the constitution of the Hiker. can see ghosts but is a social outcast but more in a nerd sense than a goth sense. I liked him a lot but I haven't had anywhere to put him :(

the Psychic-type leader was extremely tsundere and her mind reading helped her out with all those tsundere insecurities (now she's just paranoid and preemptively reads people's minds)

the Fire- and Steel-type leaders were a duo battle of "smoke and mirrors" themed magicians. and also married

this is largely stream of consciousness I hope this post makes SENSE

[bigskydreaming]

Last reblog is why I'll be forever pissed at how binary tumblr/social media has made discourse about things like toxic ships, the content of dark fic, etc. Because its all so knee-jerk and reactive, on both sides of the arguments, we've left no real space for actual conversation about a lot of these topics. So often I see people defend fic about certain kinds of topics with 'well obviously this is just fiction and ppl know that this isn't REALLY okay' and its like no! That's NOT obvious or something that can be taken for granted at this point.

The extreme LACK of any kind of expanded discussion or examination of a lot of these topics at this point - as every attempt quickly devolves into various sides taking shots at everyone having anything to do with either writing the content or reacting to the content - has rendered this atmosphere where some extremely skewed views of things have become commonplace among large sections of fandoms. And for all that 'google is free' a lot of the information available TO offset these views and educate people isn't being sought out because not enough people even REALIZE that they have skewed or inaccurate views of things in the first place, so they don't go searching for more informed takes on things they don't realize they're lacking information on!

And its like.....there are some extremely fucked up views on what does and doesn't constitute consent among people reading and writing dark fic....but on the flip side there absolutely ARE people who define themselves solely by opposition to this content who aren't actually any more informed because they're basing THEIR views off of conversations that spring up AROUND these topics without ever actually delving INTO them. Not to mention topics of abuse, incest, power dynamics, age gaps......like.

We really need to stop acting like everyone is basing their views or even just assumptions about these things off of the same root preconceptions because the basic reality of how many people get a lot of their formative ideas of these topics FROM fanfic and fandom views/discourse means that there are a ton of assumptions and misconceptions lying at the root of so much discourse around certain topics and nobody is actually doing anything to correct it because everyone just assumes that everyone's operating off of some shared empirical take when that's just flat out not accurate.

[childishzombiejellyfish]

do you think slutty ace can be defined - is there a criteria? or is it subjective?

and does it require a character is at least headcanoned as ace or has ace vibes, yet also has "slut" vibes in terms of what the perceived sexualized behaviours/actions/looks are?

sorry if this is confusing I'm trying to understand as an ace person myself.

hello there, interesting questions. I had a lot of thoughts, but in the end I think those can be distilled into more questions that I also have:

what does the "ace slut" (or the slutty ace) look like? how are we building a language within our community by reclaiming "slut" and "prude" within the paradoxical nature of what asexuality can be + look like to the outside by people who try to simplify our community into something either disgusting/degenerate/diseased and other (queer) or by dismissing us and our sense of selves as not-queer-in-the-right-way (which ironically also includes painting us a disgusting/degenerate/diseased at times)-- does the paradox of slut paired with ace inherently contain the very core of queer ideal?

do we have writing on this? ace erotica, ace slut philosophy 101, the history of the ace slut, etc. and should we be saving the conversations we have on tumblr that show an interesting development in ace philosophies so that we can build more lasting ideas? how do these philosophies relate to other reclamations of the word "slut," for example in allosexual texts like macho sluts and the ethical slut? how can ace texts build on these texts?

how do these semiotics (behavioural, aesthetic, linguistic, etc) play into a shorthand in how we read fictional characters -- especially when we read so-called "sex icons" as ace (whether or not they're also sluts)

I had a lot of thoughts and answers for these questions, but one thing that got me stuck over and over was: well, a lot of this is my opinion based on observing peers + myself and how we discuss certain fictional characters and how that relates to real world ideas about what asexuality can be -- and I don't feel so comfortable doing that without more concrete data

in order to answer your questions, ultimately I'd have to state my opinion as fact without having all the facts, so I might list some of the ways in which it both is and isn't subjective -- that is, here are some questions that I think do relate to how we (un)consciously build the fictional slutty ace, that have potentially subjective answers, now go play in the fictional sandbox:

is the character considered a sex symbol?

does the reality of how this character is written cohere with the character's status as sex symbol? (and does this cohesion continue throughout multiple different writers/directors/actors, etc. for example several iterations of an iconic character)

if no, then does this character's sex appeal (sluttiness, shall we say) lie within a projection of ideals held by society (whether that be mainstream society or counter-cultural societies, like certain queer spaces), rather than actual allosexual behaviours (does Seven of Nine actually want to have sex or enjoy the idea of being perceived at all or is she just hot -- both in the past as an apparent straight male sex symbol and today when rewritten as a canonically sapphic woman)?

if yes, how can asexual ideas be mapped onto the character to disrupt potential normative allosexual reads of what constitutes "the slut"? (for example, does a character who canonically has a lot of sex mostly do it for their job or out of boredom or mainly to be involved in kink or out of obligation or or or...)

how do our own lives relate to whether we want to read a character a certain way, and how can that speak to how we can potentially disrupt normative reads of "the slut" both as within the text (Hawkeye Pierce canonically has a lot of sex, but what if he was ace...) and via outside limited reads of what a character is actually doing (Irene Adler as "The Woman" not because she was unbearably sexy or he fell in love with her, but because she beat Sherlock Holmes -- but she did crossdress which in my books is wonderfully slutty behaviour)

perhaps we can create a "not bad, just drawn that way" scale for sluttiness but crucially within an ace spectrum, not as a gauge to find out "if ace" -- we're coming at aceness as if it's a given, we're just measuring slut-factor alongside aceness: - swag: 1-10 - flirtatious: 1-10 - sex symbol actor: 1-10 - kinky: 1-10 - sexy clothing: 1-10 - sexy behaviours gen: 1-10 - likes to be perceived: 1-10 - sexy projection by the viewer: 1-10 - other subjective slut ideals (whatever they may be): 1-10 crucially none of these include "has sex," that's not what determines a slutty ace in the end. whether or not they do is entirely irrelevant to the "not bad, just drawn that way" measurement, unless you feel it changes something

IN CONCLUSION: I would never argue for official criteria when talking queering, because that way lies exclusion and a lot less fun, but there are questions one can ask oneself. I'd say the only criteria really are

a. do you headcanon this character as ace? (or alternatively, and much more rarely: IS this character ace?)

b. does this character have slutty vibes to you? and how would you embody the idea of the slut that you're mapping onto characters?

[individualist-infp]

Hi i'm stuck between infp and enfp and I wanted ur op on what u think I am? I'm actually kind of shy/quiet/awkward in social situations, but I think it's because I have some social anxiety? Either way, I always have a natural urge/tendency to be around people and try exciting things. I have a lot to say and feel like I only hold back because of my anxiety/fear. In truth, I'm actually quite spontaneous but also deep/internally focused at times. Do u think I might be an infp or enfp??

From that information I can't tell if you are an enfp, infp or other type. First of all you need to know if you are an introvert or an extrovert. There are extroverts who can have social anxiety or be shy and introverts who can be social. There's the stereotype that extroverts equal party animals or people with 100 friends that always have to be socializing, or that being an introvert equals shyness. Those are just confusing stereotypes.

The first letter of a physchological type is I or E , which stands for our primary attitude: Extraversion or Introversion.

Extroverts: emphasize the influence of outward circumstances. They interact with most situations in terms of the satisfactions possible to them—even if those satisfactions have no immediate relationship to their Introverted reflections.

Extraverts are stimulated by the claims, pleasures, and obligations of the outer world. The people, things, and events that constitute the external world.

Do you seek and collect energy from the world outside?

Are you energized by the outside world of people, objects, experiences, etc?

Do you act before reflecting?

Are you influenced by and gauge your worth by the expectations and attention of others?

Are you outgoing and highly expressive, and do you fail to recognize your own needs?

Are you straighforward, understandable, accesible?

Introverts: emphasize the inner viewpoint. They are most comfortable in situations that allow for sustained reflection and a certain amount of privacy. If the satisfactions possible in a situation aren’t well enough related to their needs, they may carve out a space for themselves that allows them to participate on their own terms.

Do you consider your own viewpoint the arbiter of reality and make decisions based on it?

Do you focus on and draw sustenance from a vivid and rich inner world of thoughts, ideas, feelings, impressions, facts?

Do you reflect before you act?

Do you defend yourself against the expectations of others?

Are you self-aware, sometimes passionately intense, but may not realize the effect you have on others?

The key here is to reflect on yourself and think were do you draw sustenance, the inside world or the external world? Extroverts can be reflective at times when they use their introvert functions but they still have the preference for extraversion.

______________________________________________________________

Also, you need to take into account your cognitive functions to figure out your type accurately. There are 4 functions in each stack of each type, their order vary depending of the type.

It's not the same to have Fi in your dominant function or as the auxiliary function, the dynamic changes. When an INFP is presented with a new situation for example, he or she first needs to reflect on personal feelings or how she feels about the situation. If it aligns with her personal values she then goes for it. On the contrary an ENFP may easily jump to the new experience and seeks to exploit it's potential, and then reflects and internalizes feelings.

INFP: Internalizes feelings, then is open to new experiences.

ENFP: Experiences, then internalizes feelings.

INFP:

(Fi) Introverted Feeling

(Ne) Extraverted Intuition

(Si) Introverted Sensing

(Te) Extraverted Thinking

ENFP:

(Ne) Extraverted Intuition

(Fi) Introverted Feeling

(Te) Extraverted Thinking

(Si) Introverted Sensing

First of all, there are the perceiving functions, which can be iNtuitive (N) or Sensation (S). We use those functions to perceive.

Types who prefer Sensation generally focus on direct sensory experience. They’re aware of appearances, facts, and details, and their surroundings have a direct impact on them.

Types who prefer Intuition generally ignore the material surface of things and consider the larger picture. They’re interested in meaning and future possibility, not facts and details. Intuitives may be so focused on a situation’s potential that they overlook present obstacles. They have great interest in symbols and the unseen, it's natural for them to read between the lines, they see what's behind the physical. Ex: When watching a movie an intutive interprets an old and decrepit manor where a tragic character lives like his underworld, a place of suffering and entrapment. A sensor just sees it as a manor, nothing more.

Then, there are the judging functions: Thinking (T) and Feeling (F). Judging functions prompt us to note how things usually happen and to organize our behaviors accordingly. This is why Thinking and Feeling are considered rational functions. Rational behavior is always based on predictability—things we know to be true because they happen regularly in the same way.

When we use Thinking, we organize our behaviors in terms of general, impersonal predictability: rules, laws, principles, logical or numerical sequence, definition, hierarchy, and so forth.

 When we use Feeling, we organize our behaviors in terms of specific, personal criteria: the signs and rituals that convey our shared beliefs, values, moral sensibilities, identification with others, and social relationships.

Lastly, there are the Perceivers (P) or Judgers (J). These do not represent cognitive functions, but preferences.

As the title suggests, those with a J preference pair like to “judge” life’s outcomes. They’re careful calibrators and enjoy setting schedules and making plans. They prefer to know what comes next and like to have a sense of control over their surroundings. Overall, they like things the way they are and aren’t always open to change.

Perceivers see life as a spontaneous opportunity.Those with a P on their personality results are most likely seen as creative, curious, and open-minded. They can easily adapt to almost any situation and prefer flexible schedules. All in all, they come across as procrastinators with an outgoing approach on life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope I haven't confused you with all of this information. This is the basics of the different type of functions and the difference between introversion and extraversion. There's a lot more to know with the functions, but I didn't wanted to overwhelm you. If you have more questions feel free to send me more messages. 😊 On my taglist I have many post on cognitive functions and typing tips, you can check them out.

I recommend you this test to figure out your type with precision:

https://www.shambhala.com/media/wysiwyg/Personality%20Type_Psychological%20Test.pdf

[creature-wizard]

I've heard about a theory in regards to the ancient civilisations, and it said something along the lines of : back then people were living a more spiritual life and they weren't " technological" , but spiritualy advanced rather than super tech and stuff , and we now, have the tech but are less advanced spiritualy.

Obviously I can't prove this, but considering that people in the past had stories and myths about everything(sky, wind, spirits of the plants or forests etc ) , you can say they were giving a spiritual context to almost everything ( just like how , maybe, we are using science now to explain different phenomenon) . This is not to deny science, just to say how what something works for us and pur belief system now, worked differently in the past.

Ohhhh this is a fun topic!

So first of all, this theory you're talking about has a lot to do with romanticism. In context, it's a very understandable reaction to the way society and socioeconomics were; but at the same time it was fraught with unfounded assertions about history and human nature, and had all kinds of dodgy notions about what it would take to improve society.

Secondly, the idea that science and spirituality are at odds with each other, and that the former destroys the latter, is largely a modern Western perception; and one that not all Westerners would even agree with. The thing is, spirituality evolves and takes different forms as society, technology, and knowledge changes. Are we "less" spiritual, or has our spirituality merely taken new forms?

Furthermore, how do we decide what constitutes spiritual advancement? Were they really "advanced," or did they just have a form of spirituality that made sense to them? Does it really even make sense for us to regard certain constellations as actual people and animals up there in the sky?

And what about the beliefs and practices we'd consider morally abhorrent today? Should we prioritize thinking that disease and misfortune are punishments from offended spirits? Should we go back to sacrificing people to Odin? Like it or not, these sorts of things were part of people's spiritual realities in the past, and blanket claims that people in the past were "spiritually advanced" implies that these sorts of things were the thoughts and behaviors of spiritually advanced people, and are therefore admirable and aspirational.

There are people who will claim that these sorts of things were somehow trivial or unimportant, and therefore don't count when it comes to assessing ancient people's alleged spiritual advancement, but what they're really doing is cherry picking based on their own biases and desires. And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with being inspired by older forms of spirituality; it's just that people shouldn't confuse "this older form of spirituality has things I like" with "this older form of spirituality is objectively better and more advanced than what we have now."

[aeoki]

SHINSEKAI - Empire of Fantasy: Chapter 5

Location: Tohoku Town (SHINSEKAI) Characters: Mika, Shuu & Natsume

TL Note:

“Inunaki-mura” (lit. Howling Village) is a Japanese urban legend from 1990 where the residents of the supposed village refused to follow the rules of the Japanese constitution. 

There is a district in Osaka called “Shinsekai” which has the famous Tsutenkaku Tower and is surrounded by eateries and other shops.

Metal Babble is the name of a monster from the Dragon Quest series. 

Shuu: Hmph. What an exaggerated comment; both your appearance and attitude are unnecessarily large.

Mika: Ngh~ Why is Nakkun a giant? Is it also because of the VR thing?

Natsume: “FuFU. I hope you’ll refrain from the unnecessary interruptions, ‘Valkyrie’. I’m sure there won’t be an end to your questioNS, but it’ll only slow down the explanation and I won’t be able to move oN.”

“Getting back to the subject at haND, you two are living in a virtual reality through the use of the latest technology, ‘SSVRS’. It would feel as if you’re dreaming while maintaining your sense of seLF.”

“I suppose it’ll be easier for young people to think of it as if they’ve been reincarnated or transported into another worLD.”

Shuu: You’re young yourself.

Natsume: “YeAH. For the obstinate elderly who cannot comprehend our unrestrained ideAS, it’s our privilege and our best weapON.”

“We’ve waited such a long time to do it, so we’ll brandish iT.”

“We’ll wave what we’ve built from the past for the futuRE.”

ŦĦΔŦ’Ş ŴĦΔŦ “ŞŴƗŦĆĦ” ĐØ€Ş.

Shuu: Stop with the personal statement and hurry up and explain the situation.

I don’t mind listening to your ramblings because you’re the speaker, but if it was anyone else, I would have walked away a long time ago.

Natsume: “On the contrary, you’re not allowed to leaVE ♪”

Shuu: …What?

Natsume: “You two will be living in this ‘SHINSEKAI’ for a temporary period of tiME. During that period, you cannot leave the VR spaCE. You won’t be able to return to realiTY.”

“I believe I’ve already given everyone but ‘Valkyrie’ an explanation and have received their consent beforehaND.”

Shuu: Then, why haven’t you explained anything to us!?

Natsume: “If I did, you would have definitely complainED and you wouldn’t take part in this game, would yOU, Nii-san?”

“We have our own reasons heRE. For better or worse, you two have special treatmeNT.”

“In any case, you’ll be living in this VR space, ‘SHINSEKAI’, for a certain period of tiME.”

“This is a dream worLD – a lot of things are different from the real worLD.”

“The laws and rules you think are common sense might not make much sense heRE, so be carefUL.”

“From here on out, the Constitution of Japan will not appLY.”

Mika: It’s Inunaki-mura! Inunaki-mura[1] ♪ 

Shuu: Why is Kagehira excited…?

Natsume: FuFU, I figured Mika-kun would understand the referenCE ♪ I thought it was a bit strange for it since we’re in the Tohoku region and that’s an urban legend from the Kyushu area, if I remember correctLY.

Mika: Before that, the word “SHINSEKAI” reminds me of Osaka for some reason, though.[2]

Natsume: “I’m basing the town here off the Tohoku region for various reasoNS, but it’s a fantasy hodgepodge consisting of customs and folklore from a variety of placES.”

“I’d prefer if you didn’t poke your nose into the details of the worLD. I got lazy when it came to the detaiLS.”

“AnywAY! You two will be living in the VR space called ‘SHINSEKAI’ for a while, okAY?”

Shuu: For what reason…?

Natsume: “FuFU, I think you’ll be able to slowly figure that oUT. This is more meaningful than staying holed up in the inn and lazying about until the Qualifying Rounds end, nO?”

“I hope you can enjoy this way to kill tiME.”

“If you have any questioNS, go up and ask us ‘Switch’ helper characters stationed here and there in thIS ‘SHINSEKAI’.”

Mika: ‘Switch’ is stationed here and there? Whaddya mean…?

Natsume: “If you encounter any troublES, come talk to us, alrigHT?”

“We’ll handle whatever problems you have sincerely and to the best of our abilitiES. We don’t want the test to end in failure, either, you knOW?”

Shuu: Hmph. So you’re saying, as a means of revenge for being thrown into this aggravating situation, you don’t mind if we ruin everything here?

Natsume: “You can’t do iT, Nii-san. You’re too kiND.”

“BesidES, I don’t think you two have the time to be meddling in our affaiRS…♪”

Shuu: ……?

Mika: Ngh? The people around us have started staring at us.

Natsume: “I forgot to mention thIS, but ‘SSG’ is everything in this ‘SHINSEKAI’.”

“Meals, a place to sleep, moving between towns and other things coST ‘SSG’.”

Shuu: “SSG”...? You’ve mentioned “SSVRS” and “SSL$”, but I can’t keep up with all this similar terminology.

Natsume: “FuFU. In other worDS, ‘SSG’ is the only currency iN ‘SHINSEKAI’.”

“The moment an idol steps foot into ‘SHINSEKAI’, their ‘SSL$’ in their possession will be converted tO ‘SSG’.”

Shuu: Why did you change its name? Calling it ‘SSL$” would have been no issue whatsoever.

Natsume: “RigHT. To go furthER, it’s not ‘SSL$’ but ‘L$’, and it’s not ‘L$’ but the Japanese yen and that wouldn’t be an issue, eithER.”

“If different currencies are being usED, it simply means there are reasons to do sO.”

“Being able to manufacture and make use of a currency is quite powerful in its own rigHT. You could probably run a country or tWO.”

“I’m just jokiNG~ Maybe that’s too much of a hiNT.”

Mika: Ngh~? I don’t really get it but we’re the winners of yesterday’s “Championship Match”, so we’ve got quite a lotta money, right?

Natsume: “YeAH. I’m sure ‘Valkyrie’ is at the very top in terms of current ‘SSG’ possessED.”

“Also, this is an important poiNT: In this ‘SHINSEKAI’, it’s not illegal to attack and steal ‘SSG’ from other idoLS.”

Shuu: …What?

Natsume: “I’ll say it again but in this ‘SHINSEKAI’, ‘SSG’ is everythiNG.”

“You can’t do a thing without it and as long as you have soME, you can turn any dream or wish of yours into realiTY.”

Shuu: Which means…

Natsume: “YeAH. ‘Valkyrie’ doesn’t have common knowledge of ‘SHINSEKAI’ and are walking around defenselessly with a large amount of ‘SSG’...”

“They’re prey for the other idoLS. A naive person is easy to deceiVE. Just like a Metal Babble[3] who doesn’t run but sits there in a daZE.”

Mika: Nghaahhh!? O-O-O-O-Oshi– Onii-chan! The people around us have a scary look on their faces and they’re startin’ to attack us!?

Natsume: “AhaHA, I suggest you start runniNG, unless you want all of your money on hand to be forcibly taken from yOU ♪”

Shuu: Non! You call this a utopia? This behaviour is no different from barbaric cavemen!

← Previous Chapter ᠂ ⚘ ˚⊹˚ ⚘ ��  Next Chapter →

[omegasmileyface]

i completely understand (and encourage) hesitancy and distrust of image generation ML (AI) and seeking more regulation and talking abt its use to further deny artists the ability to get by on their work, and i dont think you should like it, but... im very worried when ppl say they consider it "stealing". it detects patterns in data (the data being the pixels in the pictures and the words in their metadata such as the titles), and determines "this pattern is more likely to happen under these conditions, and this other one if more likely to happen under these other conditions..." etcetera, lots and lots and lots of times. and then when it generates an image, it follows the likelihoods it counted out earlier. how does that constitute stealing? if "using a certain color/shape/composition/whatever element with the same likelihood that several artists do" is stealing (or, worse, plagiarism, which has a VERY specific definition that isn't this), then.. what isn't? how do you feel about artists who learn by copying eye shapes? artists who follow coloring tutorials by others? the people trying to reconstruct Johannes Vermeer's artistic process even though he kept it secret out of fear of stolen valor? artists drawing based off things theyve seen before but never asked permission to use in the future? artists who post studies of photos someone else took?

remember, it doesnt work anything like a "collage", and if an image generator IS recreating exact pieces of the images in its dataset, that means its not working as intended and has overtrained on a small dataset, which is considered a bad thing. the only thing an image generator (is supposed to) use from its training images is an analysis of how often certain patterns appeared.

i don't think there aren't issues of respect/credit in using something as part of training data, but i dont think using a generator as described above constitutes "stealing" the art used in the dataset. if it does, then i think the other things i've listed in the first paragraph must also count as stealing, right? and that feels like a very hostile and capitalist mindset to have. i think there are problems you can have with image generation that don't require saying you can steal a probability.

please don't encourage stricter copyright, it has historically only been in the benefit of corporations to take rights away from independent artists, which is exactly what we DISLIKE about the ai situation. there is a reason we like open source software and transformative rights and games piracy and copyleft ideals. instead, please encourage protections for artists, like regulations ensuring artists get livable wages regardless of if anyone wants their art. and regulations requiring disclosure that something is machine generated. and regulations restricting how much energy can be used by non-essential processes/industries. not stronger laws about idea-property, ok?

in other words, attempting to turn matters of respect (such as how you're an asshole if you post someone's art without asking but if you copy-paste someone's nft you're based. it's the same action, and it shows disrespect both ways, but the latter is someone it's fine to not respect) into law is very difficult, and if it is codified, it is pretty much always strengthened and used by large companies exploiting people for profit, because they have lawyers and publicity teams, and never used for the benefit of individuals, who get ignored or paid off.

[annabellavalenti]

*Narratives and Rhetoric 

Tumblr Essay CQ 1

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: How does this artifact use narrative elements to promote a certain ideology or constitute people in a narrative? What is (ethically) productive and/or limiting about this depiction, and is it more productive or limiting? 

To investigate these questions, I examined the song “This is America” by Donald Glover as my rhetorical artifact. "This Is America'' is a song on the various social and political issues in the United States, particularly those related to gun violence, race, and the African American experience. Thus this song and music video promotes the narrative of the complex and sometimes contradictory nature of American society through the use of social truth, and the size of the audience this video reached, made for significant social and cultural impact.

The release of "This Is America'' occurred during a period of extreme social and political awareness, with ongoing discussions and debates about gun violence, racial tensions, police brutality, and the state of American society. The video's provocative content and symbolism added to these conversations and made it a significant cultural and artistic moment. The song and video emphasize the duality of American life, where moments of joy, celebration, and distraction coexist with violence and oppression. This suggests that America can be both this amazing place of freedom and expression but also scary and dangerous. Throughout the video, Childish Gambino uses guns to commit acts of violence, including shooting a gospel choir. These scenes draw attention to the issue of gun violence in America and its impact on communities. The video also critiques the role of smartphones and social media in today's society. At various points in the video, people are seen using their phones to capture the chaos and violence, highlighting how these technologies can both document and trivialize important events. The video ends with Childish Gambino running in fear of a mob, symbolizing the ongoing challenges faced by African Americans and the danger they can encounter in American society. Childish Gambino's portrayal of violence, particularly violence against African Americans, serves as a commentary on racial injustice in the United States. This music video has over 800 million views on YouTube and caused a lot of uproar at the time because people aren't used to seeing America portrayed in this way. We as a society are used to seeing America projected as this' ‘land of free' ' and this video shows quite the opposite. 

A narrative is a form of communication that tells a story, typically involving a sequence of events or experiences, and often with a specific purpose or message. Narratives are a way for humans to make sense of the world and convey information. Palczewski explains that there's a bit of a blurred line between narratives and the truth.  He touches on a subject called “social truths'' which is “beliefs and values that do not refer to some objective reality, but to social reality – those beliefs about what is right that people have arrived at together,” (Palczewski 133). "Social truths" refer to beliefs and values that aren't based on some type of objective reality but rather on what a group of people in a society has collectively agreed upon. These are ideas about what is right or acceptable that the members of a community have developed together. Instead of being universally true or factual, social truths are constructed within a specific social context, shaped by the shared perspectives, norms, and agreements of a particular group or society.

Ideology plays an important role in understanding narrative. Ideology and narrative are closely intertwined concepts that often intersect in many ways. They both play significant roles in shaping how we understand, communicate, and interpret the world around us. Foss explains how the “size of the audience” contributes greatly to the impact that ideology has on the narrative. The size of an audience can have significant effects on the shaping of ideology. The size of the audience has an impact on how beliefs are presented, supported, and rejected in society. Large diverse audiences can be reached by mass media including radio, television, and the Internet. He goes on to say that “mass-mediated or other kinds of public discourse are likely to have more serious ideological consequences in daily conversations with coworkers” Foss (246). Mass media may emphasize and encourage existing social, political, and cultural norms when it spreads certain views because it can easily be reached through a screen. 

One of the narratives evident in “This is America” is that there's immense gun violence in America. The prominent use of guns and the chaotic scenes in the video draw attention to the issue of gun violence in America, emphasizing how it has become a pervasive and destructive part of the nation's identity rather than used to protect us. The video opens with a scene in which Childish Gambino shoots a man who is tied up. This scene immediately highlights the issue of gun violence in America and references the ongoing debate about police brutality and racial profiling. It creates fear and sadness through the use of the visuals and the song lyrics add to those emotional responses. In his lyrics he says “Yeah, this is America. Guns in my area. I got the strap. I gotta carry 'em”.  This promotes the truth that America is a dangerous place because of gun violence. In saying “This is America'', which he repeats throughout the entire song, he's implying that this is how America really is. As a society we are taught throughout our lives that guns protect us and that America is this amazing, free place but this music video represents the social truth that America is not as safe as everyone makes it seem.

Another one of the narratives evident in the music video is that there racial injustice in America. Throughout the video, there are references to racial injustice and the historical oppression of Black Americans. These references include the use of Jim Crow imagery, and references to the Black Lives Matter movement. In the song he repeats the line “This is America, don't catch you slippin' now". This line suggests that Black individuals in America constantly have to be on guard due to the systemic racism and violence embedded in society. He also represents the line, "Get your money, Black man (get your money)" - Again, this line alludes to the economic inequalities faced by Black individuals and the need to overcome financial obstacles. This promotes the social truth that America is a racist place and we aren't as free as it is portrayed to be. 

This narrative might be unproductive for society in certain ways, but overall, is ultimately productive. It might be unproductive if it never highlights the good in America. America is known for its cultural and ethnic diversity and the idea of the “American Dream. People from all over the world have immigrated to the United States to live a better life. With a democratic political system that values individual freedoms and the right to freedom of speech, America has a long tradition of fostering political and social change and has always been “the place to be''. However, the harsh reality is America is not a perfect place at all. With deep-rooted issues of income inequality, racial inequalities and poor access to healthcare continue to bring attention to systemic injustices that affect a large number of people. With that, the message this video is trying to convey is ultimately more productive than unproductive and will hopefully evoke some positive social change. 

In A Model of Competing Narratives by Krir Eliaz and Ran Spiegler it describes how most political disagreements are caused by a “clash of narratives'. In this model, different groups or individuals may construct narratives that align with their perspectives, values, or interests. Since everyone has different interests and views this creates a variety of different narratives which cause competing narratives that reflect the complexity of social, political, and cultural dynamics. Eliaz and Spiegler explain how “narratives can spin fantasies about the consequences of the policies they espouse but not about the status quo” ( Eliaz, Spiegler 3788). This quote highlights the narrative's selective power, suggesting that while it can craft imaginative stories about future policy, it might paint an overly optimistic or fantastical picture of the harsh reality of society. 

In relation to the video, it highlights the harsh reality of society with things such as gun violence, oppression, and  racial inequality in contrast to the prior beliefs that America is this amazing place that is free and where everyone gets along. Those two different narratives compete constantly in today's society because it's very hard for some people to want to  believe that America is a dangerous and racist place but that is the harsh truth unfortunately. And in making music videos with messages like this it opens up the gate to create social change and opens people's eyes to everything wrong with America. 

Works Cited

Childish Gambino. "This Is America." YouTube, uploaded by ChildishGambinoVEVO, 6 May 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOjWnS4cMY.

Eliaz, Kfir, and Ran Spiegler. “A Model of Competing Narratives.” The American economic review 110.12 (2020): 3786–3816. Web.

Foss, Sonja K. "Ideology Criticism." Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 8th ed., Waveland Press, 2014, pp. 233-260. 

Palczewski, Catherine H., et al. Narratives. 2012.

[laryna6]

The AU where instead of rewind Ashborn stays awake, they save the dad, head out to pin the monarch’ forces between the shadow army and the rulers’ forces and earth doesn’t get wrecked -

Jin-Ah has Trauma and Sung Jin-Woo knows his parents would have liked him to be able to get an education instead of... this, so when Jin-Ah goes to university for pre-med Sung Jin-Woo enrolls at that same university for languages/linguistics (basically Jin-Ho goes over and offers them a big check). This way, she knows he’s there on campus/in screaming distance, but they’re in in different areas so overprotective big brother hovering doesn’t bother her.

Ashborn is auditing Jin-Woo’s classes since that seems interesting and they want him occupied with stuff bc the suicidal thoughts re. wanting to ‘sleep forever.’

The problem is: Freshman Composition/the required course that’s there to protect teachers against students who don’t know how to essay.

Jin-Woo has forgotten everything he learned in high school about how to essay. Explanatory writing? Getting his thoughts across? He spent the last several years doing absolutely none of that. It is a plot point that he can’t communicate shit. Also he’s unaware of general social stuff to the point where there is so much accidental sexual innuendo in his first handed-in essay. So much. The poor TA is terrified thinking he’s flirting.

So. Uh. How do you tell the most powerful hunter in the world who everyone knows the experts are sure is a monster lord at this point that he has to take remedial classes?

The obvious person to consult is Woo Jin-Chul, as this is his job, so the essay gets slid across his desk and he’s O.o remembering how people were bitching about Jin-Woo not talking to reporters and not explaining shit and going THANK GOD THAT BOY KNEW WHAT HIS LIMITS WERE because imagine if he HAD talked to people/done interviews, IMAGINE HAVING TO DO DAMAGE CONTROL ON THIS LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION FAIL and all the weird ideas people would have gotten from the miscommunications.

So he’s like yeah... the media would be all over remedial classes... a private teacher is easiest to keep private because Jin-Woo doesn’t deserve people mocking him for the damage he took trying to keep his family alive...

Also Jin-Ho can help! He’s a good communicator/proposal writer etc, he knows rhetoric.

As per the canon epilogue Igris is... trying to help, but he was a career soldier so.

Ashborn’s essay on the other hand gets ‘wtf is this sentence structure?’ but the head of Gate Studies or w/e at the university who is getting consulted because p sure these two are monsters is like ‘this is translated from runic/monster tongue.’ Since Ashborn knows conversational basically-every-language from turning tons of people into shadows in prev timelines, but prose language is different from how you speak conversationally and all his experience writing stuff is from back when he was the Greatest Fragment, so when he’s composing formal writing he thinks in his native language and then translates into Korean.

Which. All human languages follow like, certain instinctive grammar patterns? They’re aliens, theirs is different. So yeah, there’s going to be a lot of stuff where ‘literally no human language does stuff this way only runic.’

But in addition to that, even in translation Ashborn’s writing is obviously a different dialect from what they’ve found in the dungeons because a. dungeon stuff is all from monster culture and b. dungeon stuff is informal graffiti/notes/maybe journals while when asked to do formal writing Ashborn is going to be doing formal legal writing.

Since rulers are concerned with rule of law as per how they were designed, which raises the possibility that the gov’t they were running was constitutional instead of being based on ‘bc we said so.’

Anyway, the scholars are *grabby hands* so despite risk of death asking Ashborn if they can get the untranslated version, which he likely has on him/in a binder bc wrote that out by hand before typing up translated essay.

Monsters are made to destroy and rulers to preserve, and that likely shapes their worldview and therefore how they perceive and describe things, so like... very obvious differences in like, how sequences of events are described, the optimum change being natural growth rather than forcefully imposed.

Also base 9 counting system? Everything they’ve seen has been base 8 - monsters from the eight monarchs. While the ruler side counting system used to be eight rulers and then the creator... but after realizing the creator was a dick they decided to switch to base 8 and no one told Ashborn bc he was dead at the time.