#and if they aren't i don't mind trying to find the original creator for someone

[little-pup-pip]

Where do you get your deco pacifiers?? Do you do them yourself?

Hi! I get all my deco pacifier pictures from Pinterest (all of my pacifiers are plain)! They're made by a wide variety of people, but sometimes they have a watermark! And, if they don't, you can always ask me where something comes from and I'll look for the source!!

[kanmom51]

This needs to stop

I really contemplated if to put these words down, but I am so angry and disappointed and sad at this point that I felt I had to vent.

Disappointed. I think that's the key word for what I am feeling right now.

I understand that people are upset/angry/enraged by the shit that followed JM's release of his first solo album Face. I understand because I am enraged as well.

I have no doubt in my mind that he was wronged.

He succeeded beyond anyone's dreams and probably kind of ruined certain dreams some of these people had of their own.

But to take that anger and to turn it on the one person that supported and supports JM beyond any of us is infuriating to me.

Turning on JK?

Because of what? A shithead called Scooter Braun, who has his own personal agenda and history shows us has zero real interest or care in the actual artists he is pushing?

Do people forget who JK is?

Do they need a reminder course here?

I guess I will have to give them one.

JK is JM's favourite person in the whole world.

And a full masterlist to show it:

JK is JM's number 1 fan and showing it to us whenever he just can, with or without the company's permission.

JK is one of the most artistic and creative people there are.

Suga about JK

And maybe read what one of the stylists working on the Seven concept had to say about JK and the concept.

JK's concept. He came ready to the table. He knew what he wanted to show, what message he wanted to send.

He was given option, other concepts, other ideas, and he chose what he chose.

JK didn't steal JM's ideas. He didn't utilize them for the lack of coming up with original ideas of his own. Don't believe me, believe JK's talent, his artistry.

JK CHOSE this. This is what he wanted us to see.

It's not about copying. It's about showing us who inspires him.

It's about showing us, not only telling us, who his catalyst is.

He CHOSE the EXACT same leather pants that JM wore.

Do you see the scribble at the bottom of the jeans?

JK CHOSE the jeans with the mud.

He CHOSE.

He did not copy or plagiarize.

He took artistic liberty to mirror JM's photoshoot to an extent.

Sending us all I'd say more than one message.

First one is what I mentioned above. JM is his inspiration.

Second is connecting himself to JM, to Face, to Like crazy.

Perhaps his way of showing us he's that person that stood by JM's side when he was struggling. The one that tread mud with him. The one that tried to wake him up, save him, but JM wasn't ready for that just yet at the time. The one that let JM embrace him while trying to escape reality.

And instead of seeing what JK is trying to tell us, his fans, Jikookers as well, are turning on him?

Making JK out to be someone that doesn't have an original idea and goes and steals JM's is disrespectful to both JK and JM, btw.

This coming from people that supposedly love and know JM and JK?

JM is a 27 strong willed young man. And evidently, JM has no issues with JK of late.

JK is a 25 yo creative artistic young man, who adores and admires and lives for JM, and would NEVER steal something from JM, never take something of JM's and pass it on as his own.

Do they not understand that JM is joking when he calls JK his copycat? Has been for years now.

Did they not see the joy and love in his eyes when JK said "I'm hyung's copycat"?

He knows that JK looks up to him.

He knows that JK is inspired by him.

He lives for that.

And to go and to make it into something ugly it's just so infuriating.

JM was wronged. We can agree on that. The COMPANY could have and should have done better.

THE COMPANY.

Not the other members.

Not JK.

I get the anger and frustration. But do we take it out on the one person that did right by JM? Do we take it out on the one person JM loves more than anything? The person that JM will stand by and support and root for to succeed? How is that loving JM?

Since when did two wrongs make a right?

Don't go around saying you won't support JK's single.

Support him all while continuing to support JM's songs.

[sssssaarn]

In relation to that essay I wrote about not being plural, I have found/heard of some terms that are pretty close to describing my experiences, but they all have their own problems for me, personally. I'm not researching very intensely into terms, and I am mainly sharing this for others who might find these terms better to describe themselves than I did!

Under the cut because it kind of got long, oops.

The first is polymind, the definition (from the official wiki page) is as follows: "people who are able to distinguish their subpersonalities so well to the point they are perceived as unique beings."

There are a few problems with it (for me, personally), those being that: 1. It has been tossed around in syscourse as a 'non-harmful alternative to endo', despite the original creator specifically saying it did not coin it to 'replace' anything, and also not having syscourse opinions.

2. Because of its involvement in syscourse, its definition has become less clear, with some even saying that it's for 'systems who just don't want to call themselves systems'. Ignoring the fact that labels are a completely personal choice + preference, and you should not force any one label onto anyone, I feel like if I called myself polymind it would incidentally give others the wrong first impression. (That being that I'm anti-endo, which I'm not.)

3. I wouldn't use the word '(sub)personalities' to refer to these beings in my mind. Because the 'characters' I have in my brain get very individualized based on how much I write about them, and so they're not my personalities, they're facets of my writing. Also, having them be called personalities just brings to mind 'multiple personality disorder', the older and widely considered offensive term for DID (before it got renamed to DID). (I am going to repeat that this is personal preference for me, and I am aware that the more widely used term in the community is 'minds', which I do like -- but it's more this specific word in the definition that I can't relate to.)

The second term is multiself, its definition (from the coining post) is this: "Multiself is an umbrella term for any singlet/singlet adjacent being that experiences multiple identities/selves."

This term actually fits me pretty accurately! Since I experience 'myself' through stories, and especially through characters, I tend to view myself through the lenses of characters, even if I don't necessarily identify as them. For example: Saarn is a character I identify as, whereas someone like, say, V1 from Ultrakill is a character I don't identify as but can see myself in in some ways. If I wrote a lot about V1, I would begin to be able to 'think' more like it.

The main problems I have with this term is that 1. It was coined by a radqu.eer. I do not want to get involved with that community whatsoever, but unfortunately even if you just use the identity and try to separate it from its origins, people will still make assumptions about you if you use it. I don't want to have to tag every post I make with 'antiradqu.eer multiself' because that honestly would just be a pain. I've also said this before but making a giant post (or DNI, or BYI) about my opinions would just take too long and would be a pain to update all the time. Plus, who would read all my opinions on increasingly niche discourses?

2. Because it is a much more recently coined term, and thus isn't popular, there isn't much of a community. The tag for multiself is mostly just coining posts -- which aren't necessarily bad! But there's just not a lot of actual discussion (like if you look into the polymind tag for example, you'll see a lot more discussion from others of their experience being polymind). This means that it would be harder for other beings to understand what multiself actually is, and more likely for beings to brush it off (similarly to polymind) as 'systems not wanting to call themselves systems'.

The third term is soulbonding, its definition (from this carrd) is: "Soulbonding is when a person, often after forming a strong connection to a fictional character or world, can communicate with characters in their mind."

And yeah, out of all three of these terms, this one is probably the most accurate! I would love to use it, but again, it does come with its own problems (I think 'baggage' would probably be better to call it, at this point, since most of my problems aren't even with the terms themselves but with people making assumptions about them).

1. It has sort of been absorbed into the plural community, despite there being evidence that not all soulbonders consider themselves plural. That's why I had to specify in my essay 'non-plural soulbonding'; otherwise, again, people would make assumptions.

2. Because of its absorption into the plural community, the actual soulbonding community itself has basically... Died. There are still people posting in the tags, of course, but there aren't any popular, active Discords or forums I could find. Mainly, it seems like most soulbonders stick to isolated parts of the web. This presents the same problem as multiself, where it can be harder to find or understand information about it, because no one is actually talking about it!

3. The term has gained a heavy spiritual connotation, as in "I'm literally communicating with this character that's in another world" or something similar to that. I'm not talking down to spiritual soulbonders (that'd be hypocritical of me), but it doesn't relate to how I see the characters from my writing. And I think the 'soul' part of 'soulbond' only adds to this connotation.

Out of all these terms, soulbonding is probably the one I'm most likely to use, even with all the misinformation or assumptions about it... But it would be and is exhausting to explain the same things over and over again. (Another reason why I wrote up my original essay, I was tired of saying "I'm not plural, even though I have some similar experiences to plurals, please stop recommending me to 'do more research' because I already have identified as a system and it didn't fit me".)

Then again... I guess dealing with misinformation around these terms wouldn't be much different from the misinformation already around alterhuman, otherkin, otherhearted, etcetera. Maybe I just need to get over myself.💀

Again, these are all personal opinions! If I accidentally got any information incorrect here, then please politely tell me, instead of sending hate, or whatever. Hate is not a very effective way to get people to listen to you.

[gabriellerudessa]

Thoughts about Mass Effect

So, I've just finished my run of the Legendary Edition. For context, I was 18 when ME3 launched, and I'll be 30 this year; the last time I had played the whole trilogy was WAY BEFORE the LE was launched lol.

So. All this time between gameplays and a lot of things in my life made me reflect a lot on the games and conflicts presented, the end and so on. Bear with me, this will be long.

Catalyst says that the root of the problem it has to solve is "organic versus synthetic"; this causes whiplash, because it is NOT something heavily shown in the games as "the root".

On the contrary, what is SHOWN is "control and order versus free will and self-determination": it's shown in the genophage - created because the Salarians COULDN'T control the Krogan -, in the Quarians versus Geth, the Collectors - so heavily indoctrinated they can't chose by themselves again -, Saren, The Illusive Man since ME2, the Reapers, and in ALL companions to some extent. Miranda, EDI and Jacob are the most glaring ones, but all of them bring this. Most of them in the oldest conflict regarding Created versus Creator to ever exist: Children versus Parents. Children test boundaries and once old enough, when they gain awareness and notice that Parents aren't as perfect as they thought, conflict arises. It can either end very badly, coldly, or they find new common ground.

And all this involves HEAVILY Control versus Free Will, some parents see children as extensions and something to control, others understand it's not like this. Most companions have this to some extent, usually from the children POV; Thane, I think, is the only one we see from the other side, a parent trying to reconect and fix his mistakes - Heck, even when we take away the Child vs Parent, we still have the concept Control vs Free Will, in that he was only a Weapon for the Hanar to control. (Edit: for some fucking reason I forgot Samara is a Mother and also her whole point is also about control vs free will. Go Brain 🤦🏻‍♀️)

But the Catalyst does not see any of this. It appears to disregard ALL other forms of conflict that can and have lead to annihilation of others - Javik himself says about how the Protheans would annihilate the species that don't conform and how there was this people that "found the secret for eternal peace" and then another came and decimated them. Conflict is a result of existence, usually because one wants to control others, but the Catalyst only sees "Organics versus Synthetics".

Why? I say the root for this is because The Catalyst was created by Leviathans, and as such, in their likeness of thought. And what we see about the Leviathans? The origin for indoctrination, focused on organics as far as we can see, in a more aggressive way - the miners had lost all awareness for ten years, the assistant lost all sense. The examples we see from Reaper Indoctrination are more insidious, if they aren't outright converting you on being a soldier for them; they make you think it's your choice, that they are right and so on. It's not outright stripping someone from all agency, not from the get go if it's not something that serves them. And, from what is implied, the Leviathans can't exercise the same control on synthetics, while the Reapers can.

The fact that the Leviathans can control others in such a way makes me think that, for whatever reason, they don't have conflicts between themselves. Maybe they are a hive mind or they have a queen-like controlling all of them, we don't have enough to say with certainty either, but the concept of conflict in itself is alien to them. It's very possible that they controlled all species that were under their thrall to not fight amongst themselves because, as they said, dead people don't pay tribute - I risk saying that when control was more spread amongst numerous individuals, there was more conscious thought going on in the controlled, or in the past it wasn't as heavy a hand as it's seen in the present. We don't have enough information for either. Again lol

Then the organics they controlled created AIs. And they couldn't control the AIs to not attack their organics. And, I would even risk, the root of their problem was probably because these organics also didn't have the tools to solve conflicts without controlling and stripping someone away of free will. They were controlled by the Leviathans, it was all they knew. But the AIs and synthetics created questioned, tested boundaries and so on.

As a consequence, the Leviathans assumed that the root of the problem was Synthetics versus Organics, and created an AI to solve this. And probably, considering that the Reapers can indoctrinate both organics and synthetics, they only wished or thought for the AI to control synthetics so they wouldn't attack organics. But the AI, at being in the likeness of the Leviathans, concluded that control was indeed necessary, that the conflict was inevitable; as a consequence, the solution it came with was to preserve the organics in Reaper form, being able to control both organics and synthetics, and guide civilizations in such way.

But since the Leviathans didn't have conflict amongst themselves, the AI Catalyst was biased. It didn't have examples of conflicts being solved by anything beyond control. That's why it was the only solution it could envision, because it assumed that Organics would always try to control Synthetics, and that Synthetics would always try to control Organics, and thus ending in annihilation. It couldn't envision cooperation of their own free will because the Leviathans couldn't envision so.

Which is fine. Being biased is understandable. It was created in the likeness of the Leviathans, the same the Geth were created in the likeness of the Quarians - eco-symbiothic, resulting in an AI that gains processing the more they are - and EDI in the likeness of humans. Heck, when we consider that in one of EDI conversations in ME3 she says that self-preservation is not her biggest directive anymore, but the people inside the Normandy, that she is not like the Reapers, we can compare to the Leviathan, that only created the AI because they needed tribute: it was about self-preservation, their OWN preservation was paramount, as it is shown in the fact that they have been hiding for who knows how long.

And the root of the problem of the talk with the Catalyst is that we can't say anything of the type to it. We can't say that conflict is natural and expected and that organics go through it ALL THE TIME between themselves but that it does not equal to annihilation. That compromise and common ground is possible and that children go through this all the time with their parents. That Control and stripping someone of Free-Will and Self-Determination is not the answer, because it usually only creates even more conflict, doesn't matter if between Organics and Synthetics, between Organics, between Synthetics, because at some point someone will fight against it. But cooperation is possible, and it is usually better (heck Javik says that this cycle is working because all species cooperate amongst themselves)

The whiplash and so many disliking the end, I risk, is more because we can't point any of this to the Catalyst. It's understandable its bias, even expected. It's frustrating that Shepard, a soldier that very much understands about how conflict is inevitable and how you solve it is what matters, can't say so, at least so the Catalyst would recognize "I'm not perfect. I was wrong."

Because even when we go along the lines of "this is Catalyst experiment to try and find the solution", I say that not all the data in the galaxy will help against deep-ingrained bias to interpret the data in this or that way. And that is what the Catalyst is: biased in a way of thinking where conflict in itself is unacceptable and a flaw, but is only being seen in one way because their creators couldn't see and experiment in other ways. But conflict is common and a part of existence, and it can be solved in ways where it reaches compromise, where it acknowledges free will, something constantly shown in the games. Just the Catalyst doesn't see it.

[chntfessions]

Okay, fuck, we need a serious heart-to-heart here.

Hi, my name is Sydney, I am the original creator of this blog. This blog has only been up for a few weeks, and I should've established this sooner.

First things first: EVERYONE has opinions, whether we like those opinions or not shouldn't matter and we all need to learn to mind our own. If a confession is something YOU don't like, then just shut up and hate privately. We try our best to filter asks and keep hate out of this community but the people posting asks aren't letting this happen and I am TIRED of being blamed for fucking discourse.

When this blog was first made me and the mods fought TOOTH AND NAIL to defend ourselves and reassure everyone that we weren't chntangrytimes reincarnated, the only people causing discourse is the people who can't respect opinions. Corvids Sydney opinion? You think I fucking agree with that? You think I don't take it personally as a Sydney fictionkin? No I don't agree with it but I'm not gonna harass them for it. Do you think I agree with any of these wack ass ships you people come up with?? I don't agree with most of them but you don't see me reblogging posts and telling you to your faces that the ship sucks.

I'm really sick and tired of opening my phone every single goddamn week to see that numb nuts is fighting with a mod because the mod said that water is wet.

If you aren't mature enough to respect other people's opinions you can get the fuck out and go cry in your room alone about how someone said something you didn't like on the Internet. I don't fucking care if "that's just how you are" because that's not a fuckin explanation or reason, if being a dick to people is what you like doing then go to a fucking american public highschool and you'll fit right in

I've noticed you guys only target corvid too, leave them ALONEEEE for fucks sake dude they've been through and are going through enough without someone crying and whining over the fact they think Sydney should be kicked in the non-existent nuts.

This is the end of my rant, if you have a problem with something one of the mods is saying or doing just DM me on my main ( @museofthearcitect ) and I will sort it out. The next person who starts an argument with one of the mods can consider themselves unwelcome in this space, go find someone else who will tolerate your childish ass.

[number-1-kuaidul-fanboy]

Go Rush episode 139 rant below the cut

I originally put this in the tags of another post but... Okay. I'll say it here.

I know subs aren't out, hence why I won't go into too much detail on the things I'm not sure about, but... I really did not like this arc's finale.

Primarily, I really hate the decision it made to kill off all the Darkmen to heal the Velgearians.

Because no matter what season 3 tried to say, the moment the Velgearians were revealed to be in that cloth form, by this show's own lore established in season 1, they were revealed to be alive, conscious even, just unable to move, but in a healable state.

The fact that it was Earthdamar, even if it was in a more roundabout way than how Yudias was healed from the same state in season 1, that healed them is proof of this.

This in my mind was NOT killing one race to resurrect a dead one. It was Yudias (in a very unstable state of mind), entering a duel where his victory could have potentially resulted in the destruction of an empty planet and for some reason the destruction of that planet would result in the deaths of an entire species that weren't on that planet (I still don't really get that logic in the first place) to heal his species, which it ultimately did.

This was something Yudias knew going in and had no backup plan for. This season never really presented a third option or had the characters try to find another solution: it was seemingly always going to be a choice between the Velgearians' lives or the Darkmens' lives (which really makes me question poor Fukamura basically taking the Velgearians' side now).

And if you ask me, either way this would've been a cruel choice, but not in a way I found interesting. Just frustrating. It's frustrating to me that the show spent so much time on the Darkmen, clearly wanting us to get attached to the main four or be bored by their numerous episodes, only to seemingly kill them offscreen. They could be alive due to the time machine, but I sort of doubt it and even so, it still makes me question what the point of these characters even was other than to advertise cards and further other characters' arcs, mostly Yuamu's, if the story could discard them so quickly like that.

And as someone who was attached to Sabuyas, Zeyet, and especially Fukamura (who was on the protagonists' side so you can't even claim these were all "villains" that died) the fact that their characters just ended up existing to serve other characters' development and in my eyes, weren't respected in their own right, makes me feel insulted and disrespected.

The Darkmen deserved better than this.

The VELGEARIANS deserved better than this.

If we have to just take the show's word for it that their deaths were natural deaths, that they suddenly weren't conscious in this cloth form despite Yudias being conscious in the same cloth form in season 1, and that this "resurrection" that happened was indeed unnatural (despite the process that caused said resurrection arguably being indirect), then the choice the show made to kill the Darkmen to resurrect the Velgearians IS morally reprehensible.

However, I firmly believe the show's own lore doesn't support this "natural deaths" idea and that the characters within this story thinking that are just incorrect in their assessment of the situation. The idea feels inconsistent with what we know of the show's lore, which is why I was convinced for so long that there had to be a more specific cause for the Velgearians' deaths (cough cough their still sus as hell Creator cough) since the explanation we always got was so vague. That could be a misread on my part admittedly but if so, then the show having underexplained lore to the point of audience confusion, and not in an "up to audience interpretation" way, but in a "I can't follow this story I'm so lost" way is still a problem.

The Velgearians returning didn't feel satisfying to me. It didn't even feel like a resolution because I still don't understand what the cause of their "deaths" was in the first place. The only explanation we have is one that, again, makes the choice with the Darkmen even worse than it already is to me. They didn't choose to be created, none of them but Fukamura got to even really choose what to do with those lives they were given, and in the end, they had those short lives ripped away from them prematurely.

And, sure, that's tragic, but it's not tragic for any sort of thematic purpose. It's just tragic for the sake of being tragic, and that just rings so hollow to me and makes me question what the point was.

And considering the next arc doesn't look like it's going to answer any of these questions or make any of it feel more satisfying and is instead focusing on time travel, an aspect of this show I find incredibly frustating... I probably won't even watch it. My friends and I have the characters we like from the show and we have the parts of the lore we care about and want expanded on that the show doesn't seem interested in anymore. Why should I bother with the final arc?

Well... I know why I specifically might bother and it's Kuaidul because I still love him. And also completionism. But story wise, I don't see a reason to be invested anymore. The summaries might change my mind but for now, I'm just really disinterested in the direction the show has taken.

[vidreview]

VIDEO ESSAY ROUNDUP #3

[originally posted december 21st 2023]

here we are again! i've had most of this roundup queued for a while and just haven't had time to finish it, so the entries here aren't necessarily super recent. but they're still quite worth your time! so let's just jump right in.

"The Gaming Industry, Gambling, and Addiction" by GC Vasquez.

in the previous roundup i highlighted Jimmy McGee's series on the video game industry's ties to gambling. GC Vasquez has made what i think is an excellent spiritual companion to those videos, in that it approaches the same material from a decidedly personal place. the fact that the primary expected model for turning a consistent profit in the games industry (at least as far as companies like Unity are concerned, with the c-suite insisting that you'd be "fucking idiots" for doing anything else) involves pushing microtransaction gacha mechanics into every nook and cranny really cannot be criticized enough. but i think, even more pressingly, GC Vasquez points out that games have always included fictional gambling in the form of slot machines, poker tables, roulette wheels, etc, and that this demonstrably conditions kids to develop gambling addictions. on a lighter note, his video about why replay value in games doesn't matter as much as we think it does is one of those "finally someone put it into words" type essays.

"The Lost Majora's Mask Notebook | New Zelda Info" by The Hyrule Journals.

there are plenty of folks out there doing Zelda lore and history videos, but no one's got the stuff quite like The Hyrule Journals. Their documentary Line By Line, tracing the history of Majora's Mask's English translation by talking extensively to the guy who did the translation, is an excellent work of games journalism that revealed a lot of information previously unknown to me. The Lost Majora's Mask Notebook is a followup to that doc, sharing insights gained from the translator's own notebook kept during the translation process. it's cool! i would not call this A Great Video Essay necessarily but it's a good excuse to recommend an underrated channel.

"SEND IN THE CLOWN: a people's joker review" by let's talk about stuff.

oh this is a pretty cheeky inclusion, huh? one of my own videos? that's right, you got me: the whole VIDREV operation was just a shell game to goose my viewership numbers all along. the video is exactly what it says on the tin: a review of Vera Drew's incredible trans coming of age story / Batman parody film The People's Joker. i talk a fair amount in the back half about the novel ways this film got me questioning the cultural purpose of copyright and IP law, which is itself a strand of thought that began in my TUNIC review. if it seems like i'm always plugging my TUNIC review it's because i'm really proud of my TUNIC review and i would like for more people to watch it ("it" being my TUNIC review). anyway, The People's Joker is relevant now with the recent news that the film will be seeing wider distribution in the states come April 2024! so look forward to that, and to me undoubtedly plugging my People's Joker review yet again.

THE "DOESN'T NEED THE HELP" ZONE is kind of silly this time around since most of what i have to recommend is from channels that are doing relatively alright. my criteria for the distinction between does/doesn't need the help mostly comes down to vibes and subscriber count. if a channel has more than 100k subs, that to my mind means they don't need the help. this is not to insinuate that 100k+ creators are rich! youtube is a fickle mistress and everyone's revenue model looks different. i try to give precedence to folks below the 30k range, because that's where my channel's at and, coincidentally, where i tend to find the most interesting underrated creators. is it totally corrupt to put my own work in the implicitly-needs-the-help zone? call me out in the comments if you think this is a gross abuse of power.

"Playing Minecraft and Losing My Apartment" by Leadhead.

Leadhead has some great stuff, but this one hit me where it hurts. it's a video about escaping into the artificial goals of a video game at a time when personal disruption and chaos wrenches all sense of control over your own life away. i went through a pretty traumatic eviction myself back in 2021, and found myself totally incapable of making art about it. really nice to see someone else picking up that slack!

"Transition Regret & the Fascism of Endings" by Lily Alexandre.

another in a long line of bangers from Lily Alexandre, about how complicated it is to have mixed feelings on your own transition at a time when anyone expressing such emotions has their story weaponized against the rights of trans people everywhere. a lot of trans women in my life started HRT around 2017-18, and i've noticed a trend of folks in that cohort (myself included) trying to reclaim aspects of their masculinity from a safe distance by playing more with pronouns and presentation. i expect we'll be seeing a lot more videos about this in the years to come, and i can't wait! also: Lily Alexandre has some of the prettiest compositions in the whole video essay game. seriously, her color coordination and framing choices (and use of nonstandard aspect ratios!!!) are subtly artful in a way you really don't see very often on youtube.

"Should We Get Rid of Sex Scenes? (Part I)" by Broey Deschanel.

uh-oh, this one's a Nebula exclusive!!! i haven't really talked about Nebula on here yet, but suffice it to say it's an extremely important development in the business of online video. especially in this case, a video about sex scenes in Hollywood that quite literally could not exist on youtube under its current content guidelines! Broey Deschanel is a lot of fun to watch and makes some really great observations here. if you've got Nebula, it's well worth your time!

"Stop using Fandom" by mossbag.

if you have spent any amount of time in fandom (lowercase-f) spaces, you'll no doubt be well acquainted with how terrible Fandom (uppercase-f) is as a company and a product. this video digs deep into how scummy they are about filling wikis with intrusive ads, making alterations at the behest of private companies without consulting the people who manage said wikis, and their refusal to remove the wikis of any property whose community decides to migrate to another platform. one gripe i have with Fandom that didn't get mentioned is their outright ban on outbound links, which functionally murders any genuine archival usefulness a wiki might otherwise have. everything has to be in-fiction, which is just such a backwards and pointless way of doing things. they are systematically opposed to preserving community history and have no interest in fandom except as a money hungry middle-man between fans and IP owners. i highly recommend installing Indie Wiki Buddy on your browser so that you can avoid Fandom wikis like the plague they are.

"Journey to EPCOT Center: A Symphonic History" by Defunctland.

hey, did Kevin Perjurer just reinvent video essays? well… no, not really. but what he and his collaborators have accomplished here is a fascinating, impressive, and deeply odd intervention on the format which mixes archival footage, live recreations, and a "read along at home" written component to create an essay totally unlike anything i've seen before. honestly i really hope more essayists include supplemental written material in the future, especially with longer works where maybe not everything needs to be on screen! anyway, Journey to EPCOT is such a wild ambitious swing, and while i'm not totally convinced that it completely works i still have to applaud the audacity of the attempt. definitely requires a level of active participation that is well above average for youtube, not something you put on in the background if you actually want to learn anything from it, but definitely worth the effort.

"I kissed nuclear waste to prove a point" by Kyle Hill.

Kyle Hill is an educator on nuclear energy, and while i find a lot of his sillier videos a bit grating, i have nothing but praise for his work on historic nuclear disasters and the present day state of nuclear energy. it really can't be overstated how directly our general distrust of nuclear energy was kickstarted by fossil fuel companies, or how unambiguously illiterate the wider public is when it comes to the management of nuclear power plants and the disposal of nuclear waste. Kyle Hill here does a great job explaining just how unbelievably safe the whole operation is when it's well-funded and well-regulated, and stresses the inarguable fact that there's no source of green energy safer, more plentiful, or more efficient than nuclear. windmills and solar panels have their uses, but they will never be sufficient in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels if they're the only energy infrastructure we invest in at scale. and electric vehicles? oh man. the EV push as it stands is set up to be a grand historic embarrassment of catastrophic proportions. let's be good capitalists and set aside the rampant human rights violations and immense environmental impacts of rare-earth mining. the emissions from having to put down fresh asphalt more frequently due to the increased average weight of electric vehicles wearing roads down faster alone will outweigh virtually every gain from an electrified vehicle fleet, if electrifying the fleet is the only transportation infrastructure we invest in at scale.

there is simply no path forward to liberating the world from its reliance on fossil fuels that does not involve massive investment into building nuclear power plants and reducing our reliance on individual vehicles by exponentially expanding the reach of mass public transit. anything less than that is a laughable half measure whose most prominent boosters are, without a doubt, paid by fossil fuel companies to always be boosting. this is why i find Kyle Hill's work so impressive and refreshing. he talks quite a lot about nuclear disasters, but goes to great lengths to highlight that the fault lies in lack of funding, lax security protocols, and greedy parties preventing proper management, and that even with these horror stories at hand, fewer people have died from accidental nuclear exposure in history than get exposed to carcinogenic discharges from fossil fuel products every day and OOPS SORRY I'M SOAPBOXING it's a good video you should watch it

"What Happened To Spoof Movies?" by Eddache.

bit of a mood shift from that last entry, thank goodness. this here is an exceedingly thorough history of the spoof movie genre that does a great job explaining why some parodies work and others really, really do not. i had no idea how much of the recent history of spoof movies comes down to failson nepotism! a good chill video to watch if you want something relatively harmless to wile away an afternoon with.

and that's it. good luck in these final weeks of 2023, be sure to mask up, get vaxxed, and make sure your friends and family get PCR tests before any big gatherings, what with covid levels being as high as they were in 2020 in many places! i'm serious, deaths have been above 1000 a week since the end of August! so take care of yourselves out there

----

ALSO: VIDREV's askbox is open! please feel free to forward any video essays that you think might be worth talking about (even if you're the one who made it!). this includes new stuff, old stuff, professional stuff, amateur stuff, anything that can be reasonably described as a video essay. no promises that i will cover anything that gets sent to me, but i will try to give everything an honest chance when i've got the time. if you have specific questions you'd like answered, please send those over to my main account as i don't intend to answer any questions here. okay, thanks!!

<- ROUNDUP #2 | ROUNDUP #4 ->

[autumnslance]

We ALL change aspects of canon for various reasons to fit ourselves and our stories. We have our own perspectives and opinions; that's part of the beauty of transformative fanworks.

However.

We all also have to keep in mind those differences when things are rewritten. Check back in the original text if necessary and keep separate canon, headcanons, and popular fanons.

Especially when trying to speculate on characters, storyarcs, and upcoming plotlines. Are you using the text, or basing your ideas and opinions on headcanons and the memes du jour? Especially if it's been awhile since you played that expac, that patch (read that book, watched those episodes, etc)?

Think how fandom flanderizes a trait or two in your favorite characters for memes and lulz while ignoring the nuances that you notice and make you love that character. Same thing happens to plot lines and storybeats. People forget, weren't paying attention, ignored it as "uninteresting" or "I don't like X" and that doesn't work when trying to figure out later lore events, interconnected characters, or possibilities; none of it stands alone, it's all interwoven and builds off each other (or should, and we're lucky to have a game that does quite frankly, even with the hiccups and missteps).

Part of what makes good analysis, speculation, and fanworks is keeping an eye on ALL aspects of the canon: good and bad, favorites and squicks.

I may dislike character X, but I cannot ignore their interactions with other characters, impact on the story, what themes the devs are giving through this figure (I may even change my mind about them at some point, by keeping that open mind!). I likely won't write them into my fics very often if at all, but I also don't have to. My ficverse is different from the canon, even for someone like me who likes to write within the lines.

I do like to rewrite for my own ficverse a different resolution to the "Trolley Duty" cuz to me it makes no sense and smells of executive meddling. But I cannot discount that in canon, Ran'jit gets away and the WoL faces him in Eulmore. My headcanon is different from the actual story. I take that into account when analyzing Ran'jit, Thancred, that story arc, etc.

People often come to me with lore and analysis questions cuz I'm one of those folks who delves in multiple times and remembers stuff, and/or knows where to find the answers. I will (try to) go by the canon in response cuz...that's our baseline in common, and the jumping off point into whatever headcanon one wants to diverge into.

Though a lot of speculation or questions I see and get aren't considering the actual lore, seen maybe once months or years ago; it's based off of fanons, "what ifs", headcanons, memes, and other fan imaginings. Which on the one hand, great! That's what transformative fandom creativity is meant to do! Give you new ideas and perspectives!

BUT we engage with this media, ostensibly because we love the actual thing itself (tho I wonder about some of y'all who seem to punish yourselves by consuming media you apparently don't enjoy), so it behooves us to actually keep in mind the work the creators put in, checking the text and valid resources (in a MMO's case, the sites that track the lore and quest text, or use New Game+) and keep our headcanons and fanons in their own brainspace for playtime and how we alter canon entirely in our fanworks.

[frugalkubal]

Even if you're not an art thief (or you don't repost independent artists' stuff without permission), you're still part of the problem if you still like/share reposts and/or follow repost accounts.

"It's not my problem, so I don't really care. It's not a life-threatening matter, so it's no big deal." Okay, then let me wish nobody would help you when you get robbed. It's not like I wish you'd die,right? It's okay, no big deal.

// If you don't have the guts to call out the reposter, then at least report and block them AND like and/or share the original artist's work.

"Fan artist don't deserve credit because they're stealing someone else's characters! It's illegal!" Bruh. We aren't stealing anything. lol Fan art is literally an art made by a fan. We don't claim those characters as ours. We even mention where they're from. As far as I know, making fan art of characters from shows/media made by big companies and some manga is totally acceptable. Making profit off copyrighted characters, though, is illegal; however, independent artists are often ignored because those big companies don't really mind if you sell those 'lil merch of yours in cons (be careful selling online tho lol). Also, most Japanese companies/creators (mangaka) consider fan art as advertisement.

Anyway, the bottomline is that those fan arts are owned by the fan creators because they made it. The characters may not belong to the fan artist but the fan art does. Get it? ಠ‿ಠ So, shut the hell up if you're just going to justify any repost for the stupid reasoning that "it's jUsT fAnArT, bAsiCaLLy thE sAme as mEMEs!" 🥴🙄

"Don't post it online then! Someone's going to steal it anyway."

Seriously, instead of telling fan creators to stop posting stuff online, you should just focus on reporting and shunning reposters. Help in stopping this shit instead of justifying it and blaming the victims.

Reposters be like:

"We gave credits anyway!" If the artist didn't want it to be reposted, then DON'T REPOST IT.

"We gave you exposure! You should even thank us!" Again, if the artist doesn't want it to be reposted, DO NOT REPOST IT. You're not doing a favour. YOU'RE the one who owe us a favour for the undeserved attention and support you get out of reposting our stuff. Besides, a lot of social media folks are lazy bums who don't even give a damn about the original artist so they'd just settle with the repost they see; thus, that exposure you're bragging about isn't even worth mentioning.

"Don't be so stingy!" Would you like it if I say that same thing after I take something of yours without permission (basically stealing)? No, I don't think so. So, delete that damn repost now.

"DM us if you want us to take it down." 🤦‍♂️ You should've asked for permission to repost BEFORE you reposted it. A YES, UH-HUH, AFFIRMATIVE, SURE!, GO AHEAD should be given before you repost it. Simply asking to repost without being given the go signal is not a permission, bro. You just asked but a permission wasn't given. WTH

"CREDITS TO THE ARTIST." THAT'S USELESS. Zero credits has actually been given to the rightful owner. You're just trying to make yourself seem good with that. You think you did good enough by saying that but that shit's offensive as hell to the artist, especially when your repost got more engagement than theirs. If you don't know who made it even after searching thru saucenao.com or whatever, THEN DO NOT REPOST IT. That CTTO isn't doing any help; and even if you did find out who made it, you MUST ask for permission to repost first.

*adds in their own watermark* You contributed nothing in making that art. Have a bit of shame. ಠ_ಠ

*removes original artist's watermark and act as if they made it* Congrats, you're a full blown art thief. 😬 I hope you step on a lego 3x/day.

[itsbluemooncomics]

A little tip

So, this tip is for people that are just starting to draw web comics and post them somewhere.

Let's assume your a person wanting to start a web comic series, but diny know where to start. Well, here's some information from a 14 year old kid who has only been doing this for 4-5 months

1. Get an idea of your comic

Obviously, if your planning on posting comics, you might have an idea or two on what your comic might be about. It could be humorous, it could be action, it could be romantic, whatever your mind goes to, try it!

2. Don't plagiarize others work

This is one of the things not to do, even out of web comics. You technically can plagerize others, just credit the original creator. If you do plagerize others work without giving credit, then it won't go so well for the mic, and maybe you too.

3. If you have an idea, stick with it

Sometimes, you might make a comic and think that it's not good. You could post it anyways because someone out there might like that comic, but you'll never know, unless you try and do it. (But if you really hate it, you don't have to post it)

4. Don't plagerize your main character (your own art style)

This one is in the same line as number 2, but it needs to be said. Most people use other peoples characters for inspiration, but don't make it look like a CTRL C, CTRL V of the inspiration. Add some unique details to make your character stick out. Then people might be inspired by your character as well. If you make your character like another comic creators art style, then you will be like a "clone" or "copy" of that character and most comic creators don't like those type of people. Unless you flag out say your a clone of someone else like @annermations . (He's a cool dude, check him out) he states that he is an TheOdd1sOut clone.

5. Find a good place to post them.

Most of the time, people make comics and don't know where to start. Well, posting comics on the right place like here (Tumblr), Web toon, and more places. There are bad places that aren't recommended like Facebook and ifunes,

6. Accept criticism

People in the world won't like the Comics you post, and might decide to complain about how much they hate it. Just learn not to let the criticism get the best of you. Sometimes you can even learn from it to further advance your comics. Who knows.

7. Adding @handstandcomics and other comic creators into any comic makes it 10 times better

It just does. Idk why tho, it just happens to make it better

So with all that, you have a starting point. So continue your comics and might become a popular comic creator and make friends with other comic creators.

( if any comic creators would like to add something to this, I will be happy to add it)

Need even more information than this? Then watch this pretty good video explaining how to start posting web comics. (Also helped me start posting some of my web comics too and was inspiration for this post)

https://youtu.be/DUvbxe72Dzk

Hope this helps, and I will try to make a comic soon.

[hir-nin-thranduil]

RPing The Elvenking

"Elves marry for love, or at least with free will from both parties, typically early in life. Monogamy is practiced and adultery is unthinkable.[3]:229 By their very nature, they are "seldom swayed by the desires of the body" or influenced by lust.[2]:211 They marry only once for it was ruled by Manwë that, "'since the Elves are by nature permanent in life within Arda, so also is their unmarred marriage.'"[4]:225 Finwë, first High King of the Noldor, was an exception. After his first wife died, from passing the majority of her life into Fëanor,[5]:237 and refused to be re-embodied, Finwë was permitted to marry again. This was pronounced by Námo as the 'Doom of Finwë and Míriel'.[4]:226" (Reference: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Elven_life_cycle)

Since 95% of my RP requests revolve around potential romance, I thought it important to post this blog. To be clear, I’m not trying to imply that I won’t write love stories and the like. If we can't live out our fantasies in Roleplay, than where can we?

My purpose is to forewarn any interested parties that it's not going to be easy. Not only because of the Lore posted above, but because Thranduil has heaps of emotional baggage. The death of his wife shattered him...and Elves can literally die from grief. "For the Elves die not till tile world dies, unless they are slain or waste in grief." (The Silmarillion). I think The Elvenking found the will to survive, not only for his people and his kingdom, but more importantly, his son.

That being said, it's damn hard for me to imagine that Thranduil is in any hurry to put himself in a position where that could happen again. Plus, there is the shadow of his late wife to consider, his obvious love and devotion to her could cause him to feel that he’s betraying her memory. There’s also a great deal of guilt because he most likely feels responsible for her death. This is of course my own brain dribble. I don't believe his wife is even mentioned in the original lore. But according to the films she died as a prisoner at Gundabad. If anyone doesn't think he feels responsible for being unable to rescue her, then they just don't know Thranduil.

Why do we think he's so obsessed with reclaiming the Gems of Lasgalen? Sure, they're heirlooms of his people and probably worth quite a lot...but Elves aren't greedy or concerned with material gain. These gems were basically stolen from him when he commissioned a necklace for his wife....and in his mind, they sort of represent the last link he has to her - particularly that necklace. He couldn't rescue her, but perhaps he could rescue those gems. It’s symbolic and psychological. It is for this reason that I believe he is willing to go to war over something like this and risk the lives of himself and his warriors.

That's also probably why his grudge against the Dwarves is so intense that he refused to help during their time of great need. He warned Thror of "what his greed would summon" (AKA: A Dragon). So he probably felt that they got what they deserved. Plus I really don't think Thranduil is in any hurry to go up against another dragon after the injuries he suffered in the past. 

Since he was somehow unable to rescue his late wife, he may also feel that he deserves the loneliness and isolation that he now endures, simply because he could not/did not save her. Which is another reason he may choose to actually deprive himself of the solace he might find with a new lover.

Also, I don't control my muses...they call the shots. I honestly can't guarantee much of anything...except perhaps angsty feelz and lots of sarcasm. My advice? Well, The Elvenking is over 7,500 years old. There's probably almost nothing he hasn't already seen and done. Most of his life is probably a blur of repetition. Conventional Beauty alone just isn't going to cut it....I mean, he's surrounded by other gorgeous Elves all the time. If a character has any hope of attracting his attention and interest, they're going to have to be unique and/or stir something deep within his soul.

Also...I know there are a lot of people who like to imagine Thranduil with a human lover. As I mentioned earlier, the grief from losing his wife nearly killed him...so why would he ever choose to go through that again...particularly with someone who's guaranteed to die? "A hundred years is a mere blink in the life of an Elf"....his words, not mine.

On the flip side of this, if anyone is curious about why I AM willing to lorebend and write romance/erotica with Thranduil in spite of all the evidence against it's likelihood:

Well, Elves are meant to be incredibly wise and much more advanced than other peoples of Middle Earth, therefore I'm inclined to feel that they're probably more progressive than their Old Fashioned Christian creator originally intended. I of course, say this with the utmost respect and admiration for J.R.R. Tolkien and his legacy. He's one of my personal heroes, and as you can clearly see, I'm a huge fan/nerd.

As we all know, Peter Jackson and his crew took plenty of liberties and bent/broke the original lore. The Elvenking we know and love from the films is quite different from one we read about in the books. He's also inspired by Thingol, and to a lesser extent, Fëanor (the Gems of Lasgalen were said to be loosely inspired by the Silmarils). Anyway, as a fellow writer/creative person, I guess I feel justified in doing the same as long as it is in the interest of good storytelling and fun RP, while also within reason. I enjoy writing romance as much as anyone else.

There are obviously purists and others who would disagree with me, and that's fine. This is just my personal stance. Feel free to contact me with questions or concerns. 

Thanks for reading.

P.S. AUs are an unconventional method of writing romance with Thranduil. This blog refers to when I write him strictly canon.

[geek-gem]

Let's talk about Hilda's dad

As you've seen from my latest posts. I've made stuff concerning Hilda's dad and I've mentioned him before. But now I'm speaking more about him. Especially after finding out he does exist in canon.

Many minutes ago or so I got a message from someone by the name of @smol-maru55 who I was nervous to speak to because I worried I might of bothered people with my posts. But Smol was very polite and actually offered me information that literally Luke Pearson himself answered in a review. I thank Smol for sharing me this because this changes quite some stuff.

Especially what's amazing this was before the show aired on Netflix. Including I think this is where the wiki on the show got this information. Luke talks about other stuff but he talk about Hilda's dad. If you guys don't mind I'm gonna share what he said. But I'm gonna keep the link to the interview to show where it came from. Especially he said other other interesting things too.

Luke Pearson: "There are too many stories about absent/crappy fathers turning a new leaf and showing everyone that they were always a good guy really. It's not something I'm interested in getting into. Hilda's dad's never been there for her, and his absence doesn't define her or her mum in any way, so I don't see him as an important character. I may touch on what his deal is eventually, but he's not going to get to swoop in and take up a lot of panel space."

That's what the main man himself said. Including like I said it changes my mind on some things. But I understand where he's coming from.

Related to the topic and I have spoke of this before. I do have head canon on Hilda's dad and it was around the early days of when I was in the fandom and they still are relevant.

Basically I had this idea for why Hilda's dad wasn't around was because of some reasons. Yet it's honestly like I joked about what the fandom would think would be quite depressing. Even for a show like Hilda. While it has it's serious moments. This would of been a bit much.

The idea I had for Hilda's dad is at first he did love his family, he loved Johanna, and he loves Hilda. But over time as Hilda grew up and became more adventurous, something changed.

Hilda's dad never liked the supernatural and how it was so normalized it was. Especially his daughter was embracing it and her attitude actually annoyed him. You have things like Twig living with them, Woodman visiting without permission. Including other things out there.

So I decided I guess at a point and reading a Johanna X Reader story(Yeah I'm saying that I'm not saying where) featured Hilda's dad and he left the family when Hilda was 5.

Basically he left her at a young age, told Johanna he just couldn't handle the stuff that was going on. He wanted a normal life. The guy left to go somewhere else most likely join the military. Which was something I wonder if I should make a thing but it's official I put him as a SAS which is kind of ridiculous.

He literally left because he didn't wanna deal with Hilda's adventurous attitude and other things. Which kind of says something....if the guy can handle one of the most harsh training for one of the toughest special forces in history, and he passes with flying colors....

But he can't handle Woodman and he almost tries to kill him with an axe. Which I joked about with @simonxriley that Hilda's dad wanted to kill Woodman at one point but Johanna got to stop him(because she even knows that's wrong and Hilda wouldn't want that). Especially it didn't phase Woodman and that freaked Hilda's dad out. Also Hilda found out later when Johanna told her.

The story for him I had was he would go to Trolberg after Woodman told him what happened. He visits them and it be this arc of how he wants to do better and be with his family again because he realized he was selfish. But it doesn't go that Luke talks about. This is part of the depressing part.

So the idea of the story of Hilda's dad trying to get together with his family is showcasing after years without them. He tried change but he can't. Because he thought everything would of been normal now in a city but Hilda didn't change and it's some what worse in Trolberg when he finds out the adventures Hilda has been in.

Especially Hilda's dad revealing to Hilda he actually left because of her. Because he didn't want a daughter who embraced the supernatural and all that around her. He has this prejudice against that stuff because it bothers him.

With the lesson being sometimes dad's aren't always as they seem. Even after they left they sometimes won't change and you have to move on from them. Because if they can't change why should you have them back in your life if they won't change for the better.

Basically with Hilda doubting herself that her own father abandoned her because of her personalities. But because of her friends and Johanna she learns it's okay and it's her dad's fault.

Hilda's dad was supposed to be an antagonist in a way. But not a villain despite he's a SAS ex one or not that's scary. He's a guy who can't mature and change, and just appreciate his daughter of who she is.

I wanna make this clear not every dad is shitty, their have been bad ones. But not every dad is bad I want to be clear on that. It was the concept of Hilda and Johanna moving on from him because he couldn't mature and be at peace with everyone. Especially how his daughter grew up.

Thinking in the end he just leaves, tells them goodbye and realizes this never worked. But seriously that sounds depressing like maybe that he does love them but he can't handle it, yet he can handle being an SAS.

Honestly thinking on this I definitely see why Luke didn't wanna do something like this. Even with my intentions being a different outcome. It's just a bit much unless the show takes on more serious subjects if Luke wants to or not.

In fact I even predict and think I could of made something like a reaction to Hilda's dad is that everyone if you love Johanna, if you ship Johanna X The Librarian, or if you love the show a whole lot and every character. The whole fandom just bands together to hate Hilda's dad because why the hell would you abandonded her own daughter because she loves flying on Woff's and she loves wilderness and everything it has to offer? Hilda is literally the best thing ever and a child that's a blessing.

I do think or yeah I remember. Their was an idea I had for an extra character. A younger male who would be a babysitter if Johanna wasn't around, and has a crush on Johanna and it's sort of like a child having a crush on a teenager at first. But basically it turns out that babysitter this guy that really cares for Hilda and her friends is basically the dad she always wanted and the kind of man Johanna always wanted because he actually cares despite he's weird, he tries his hardest.

I'm sorry for rambling, but again I totally get Luke on why he doesn't on go into detail of Hilda's dad. Especially the fact he admits it never had such a huge affect on Hilda and Johanna's life and they aren't defined by it. God I love he actually said mum but he is British.

Still would of been funny if well I originally wanted Craig Fairbrass as Hilda's dad but I want Kit Harington now so I can see all the stupid but funny headlines of how Jon Snow is in Hilda and people getting into the show and I'm like, "Me and a whole bunch of other fans were here first" it be this funny thing.

Also the younger babysitter guy would be voiced by Tom Holland or KJ Apa.

Really I would like to hear what was Hilda's dad's deal of why he's not with his family anymore. It's probably not gonna be like this but I keep thinking he and Johanna weren't a good match and he's actually a good guy. But still that's the thing Luke doesn't like.

I want him to be a good guy now voiced by Kit Harington because my God if a character like that existed on Hilda, he would probably be the worst character because he's more of a selfish jerk than other jerks like Trevor or the Marra. Especially Trevor is just a kid but still though, hope he develops in season 2. Especially the Marra are the Marra, their jerks, but they just want to cause nightmares for folks. Even though Kelly seemed to be alright because Frida showing some kindness towards her after giving Kelly her bunny back. Which might of well not fully changed but had Kelly appreciate Frida more.

Also Victoria Van Gale just kidnapped a baby weather spirit which was shitty. But considering her place was destroyed. She probably learned her lesson.

An asshole dad who left his daughter because he didn't like how she was is a bit too much even for me or....something.

Anyway I wanted to share that. I'm sorry this got long and me rambling.

[chachaelt]

FOR ADVANCED STUDENTS. Read the following article available on the Wall Street Journal website and answer the questions.

What cocktail parties teach us

The Brain Is Wired to Focus on Just One Thing; Which Tasks Are Easier to Combine

Melinda Beck on Lunch Break looks at the "cocktail party effect," in which people are able to focus on one conversation while being aware of conversations going on around them. Researchers say we can train our brains to maximize this kind of awareness.

You're at a party. Music is playing. Glasses are clinking. Dozens of conversations are driving up the decibel level. Yet amid all those distractions, you can zero in on the one conversation you want to hear.

This ability to hyper-focus on one stream of sound amid a cacophony of others is what researchers call the "cocktail-party effect." Now, scientists at the University of California in San Francisco have pinpointed where that sound-editing process occurs in the brain — in the auditory cortex just behind the ear, not in areas of higher thought. The auditory cortex boosts some sounds and turns down others so that when the signal reaches the higher brain, "it's as if only one person was speaking alone," says principle investigator Edward Chang.

These findings, published in the journal Nature last week, underscore why people aren't very good at multitasking — our brains are wired for "selective attention" and can focus on only one thing at a time. That innate ability has helped humans survive in a world buzzing with visual and auditory stimulation. But we keep trying to push the limits with multitasking, sometimes with tragic consequences. Drivers talking on cellphones, for example, are four times as likely to get into traffic accidents as those who aren't.

Many of those accidents are due to "inattentional blindness," in which people can, in effect, turn a blind eye to things they aren't focusing on. Images land on our retinas and are either boosted or played down in the visual cortex before being passed to the brain, just as the auditory cortex filters sounds, as shown in the Nature study last week. "It's a push-pull relationship — the more we focus on one thing, the less we can focus on others," says Diane M. Beck, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Illinois.

That people can be completely oblivious to things in their field of vision was demonstrated famously in the "Invisible Gorilla experiment" devised at Harvard in the 1990s. Observers are shown a short video of youths tossing a basketball and asked to count how often the ball is passed by those wearing white. Afterward, the observers are asked several questions,including, "Did you see the gorilla?" Typically, about half the observers failed to notice that someone in a gorilla suit walked through the scene. They're usually flabbergasted because they're certain they would have noticed something like that.

"We largely see what we expect to see," says Daniel Simons, one of the study's creators and now a professor of psychology at the University of Illinois. As he notes in his subsequent book, "The Invisible Gorilla" (co-authored with Christopher Chabris), the more attention a task demands, the less attention we can pay to other things in our field of vision. That's why pilots sometimes fail to notice obstacles on runways and radiologists may overlook anomalies on X-rays, especially in areas they aren't scrutinizing.

And it isn't just that sights and sounds compete for the brain's attention. All the sensory inputs vie to become the mind's top priority.

That's the real danger of distracted driving, experts say. "You regularly hear people say as long as your hands are on the wheel and your eyes are on the road, you're fine. But that's not true," Mr. Simons says.

2.5% The percentage of people who can multitask efficiently. Many more people only think they can.

Studies over the past decade at the University of Utah show that drivers talking on hands-free cellphones are just as impaired as those on hands-held phones because it is the conversation, not the device, that is draining their attention. Those talking on any kind of cellphone react more slowly and miss more traffic signals than other motorists.

"Even though your eyes are looking right at something, when you are on the cellphone, you are not as likely to see it," says David Strayer, a psychology professor and lead researcher. "Ninety-nine percent of the time, it's not that critical, but that 1% could be the time a child runs into the street," he adds.

Dr. Strayer's studies have also found that talking on a cellphone is far more distracting than conversing with a passenger — since a passenger can see the same traffic hazards and doesn't expect a steady stream of conversation as someone on a cellphone does. Listening to the radio, to music or to a book on tape also isn't as distracting, because it doesn't require the same level of interaction as a conversation. But Mr. Simons notes that even drivers may miss some details of a book on tape if their attention is focused on merging or other complex driving tasks.

Some people can train themselves to pay extra attention to things that are important — like police officers learn to scan crowds for faces and conductors can listen for individual instruments within the orchestra as a whole.

And the Utah researchers have identified a rare group of "super-taskers" — as estimated 2.5% of the population — who seem able to attend to more than one thing with ease.

Many more people think they can effectively multitask, but they are really shifting their attention rapidly between two things and not getting the full effect of either, experts say.

Indeed, some college professors have barred students from bringing laptop computers to their classrooms, even ostensibly to take notes. Dr. Beck says she was surprised to find that some of her students were on Facebook during her lectures — even though the course was about selective attention.

Still, she doesn't plan to crack down. "I just explained that doing Facebook in class means you will not learn as much, which will have consequences on the exam," she says.

Clearly, it is easier to combine some tasks than others. "Not all distractions are the same," says Dr. Strayer. Things like knitting, cleaning and working out can be done automatically while the mind is engaged elsewhere. But doing homework and texting simultaneously isn't possible. (Sorry, kids).

Even conversing and watching TV is difficult. "Just try conversing with your wife while watching football. It's impossible," jokes Mr. Simons.

PAY ATTENTION | How to stay in the zone

• Recognize your limitations. The brain can only fully attend to one thing at a time. • Make your senses work together. If you're trying to listen to someone in a noisy room, look directly at the speaker. • Focus on what's important. Many professions — from pilots to police officers — depend on keen powers of observation. Training and practice help. But experts say things like chess and videogames likely won't expand your overall attention skills. • Allocate blocks of time to specific tasks. Sometimes a deadline can force people to focus. • Avoid distracted driving. Don't talk on a cellphone, text or give voice commands while at the wheel.

ACTIVITIES

A - QUESTIONS

1. How does one of the researchers describe the phenomenon — the ability to hyper-focus on one thing we want to hear, even being amidst all kinds of noises —, avoiding the use of jargon and using clear trivial language?

2. Why aren’t humans good at multitasking?

3. What does one call the main cause of accidents brought about by unsuccessful attempts of multitasking?

4. Why were people who took part in the Gorilla experiment flabbergasted?

5. How do academics explain the results of such experiment?

6. Drivers talking on hands-free cellphones are just as impaired as those on hands-held phones because ______________________

7. What is the difference between looking at something and actually seeing it?

8. Which professions may lead people to train themselves to hyper-focus on relevant things?

B - WATCH THE VIDEO TWICE OR THREE TIMES AND FILL IN THE GAPS.

ANCHOR: What is the cocktail party effect?

MELINDA BECK: It’s a phenomenon where, in amidst of a ________ cocktail party, any kind of noises at a sporting event or newsroom... We are ______ ______ to focus in on the one conversation we wanna hear and somehow tune out everything else.

ANCHOR: And how come researchers and other scientists are _____ _____________ in this? Why is that? Why do they wanna know where this ability comes from?

MELINDA BECK: It’s part of this whole phenomenon of _________ attention wherein the human brain can _______ _______ focus in... _______ on one thing at a time. And this is a survival skill, you know, we’re _________ bombarded by this _______ and _________ stimulation. We couldn’t survive unless we could focus in like this. But we can also _______ ________ focus on one thing at at a time, and that’s... That’s what’s an issue in __________ driving and all other kinds of limitations of multitasking.

ANCHOR: Are there people who... Is there a small percentage of people who _________ have the super ability to focus on more than one thing or is that ???????????

MELINDA BECK: Yes, researchers at the University of Utah have found some of _______ people in the course of their other research. They think it’s about 2% of the population. The _______ problem is that most of us think we can do that and that can have some __________ consequences.

VOCABULARY

Copy the sentences where the words in bold below originally appear. The first two examples have been done for you.

- The brain is wired to focus on just one thing.

wired: in a nervous, tense, or edgy state : not much sleep lately — I'm a little wired. • under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

- Yet amid all those distractions, you can zero in on the one conversation you want to hear.

amid: preposition

surrounded by; in the middle of : our dream home, set amid magnificent rolling countryside.

• in an atmosphere or against a background of: talks broke down amid accusations of a hostile takeover bid.

yet: nevertheless; in spite of that.

to zero in: to take aim with a gun or missile: jet fighters zeroed in on the rebel positions; to focus one’s attention: they zeroed in on the clues he gave away about.

to pinpoint: to find or locate exactly: one flare had pinpointed the target / Figurative: it is difficult to pinpoint the source of his life’s inspiration.

to underscore: to underline, highlight, emphasize.

innate: inborn, inbred, natural.

to be buzzing with: (of a place) have an air of excitement or purposeful activity : the club is buzzing with excitement.

to turn a blind eye to: to pretend not to notice.

oblivious: not aware of or not concerned about what is happening around one: she became absorbed, oblivious to the passage of time | the women were oblivious of his presence.

to toss: move or cause to move from side to side or back and forth.

to vie: compete eagerly with someone in order to do or achieve something; to strive for superiority: contend, compete.

as long as: provided that, on condition that, on the assumption that, assuming that... we’ll take care of the horses as long as can stat at your house while you’ll gone.

impaired: disabled, handicapped, incapacitated; (euphemistic) challenged, differently abled.

to drain: to cause something to be lost, wasted or used up.

to converse: to engage in coversation.

hazard: danger, risk, potential source of danger, peril, threat, menace, problem, pitfall.

ostensibly: apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.

to crack down on (informal): to take severe measures against: we need to crack down hard on workplaces that break safety regulations.

[notyourmartyr]

Even calling expectations unreasonable is subjective, so I mean...what you consider unreasonable, others obviously don't. You're not the authority on reason.

The fanbase should not be alienated just to bring in fresh blood, because guess what? That is disingenuous to the character. Even if it's someone's first batman movie, it still needs to be a BATMAN movie. If someone decided to make a new batman movie but kept his parents alive to increase "mass appeal" fans would be pissed, and they have every right to be frustrated and even angry with decisions.

Again, no, pleasing the fans isn't a lost cause. No, you can't please eveyone but you should be trying to stay as true as possible to the source, please as many as you can, and hopefully turn others to your side. Not listening to the fans is shitty and a good way to lose fans. So no, fans don't need to suck it up and take what they get.

I'm not saying they need to change, although I find Pattinson to be cookie cutter, forgettable, and boring, but eh. I've also seen people against a casting be right, or suggest alternatives. Fandom is not monolithic.

Getting an actor removed from something happens for various reasons, including poor fit/fan reception and is not harassment. It also isn't a lack of empathy. You're making assumptions of motivation. Also, being human doesn't change the fact that they can be fired. I've seen actors listen to criticism and back out of roles they should never have taken. I've seen them go on to shine. They chose to be actors/filmmakers, be in the public eye, and create art. Art gets critiqued. That's part of the process, and they are not immune.

Sometimes, someone not being a fan is fine. Otherwise, it leads to a sub-par adaptation, or performance. If someone is passionate about it they want the best they can possibly give you, which is how we ended up with the Epics that are the Lord of the Rings movies.

The filmmakers don't really have ownership either. The licensing holders and original creators do. Fans aren't acting like they "have authority". You need to make up your mind. Is the film being made for the market, or for the creator? Because if it is for the market, you need to listen to your market, which is initially largely composed of your fans. If it's for you, well, then fuck 'em.

At no point did I say anyone was OBLIGATED to do anything. I said they SHOULD do a few things, but at no point did I call it an obligation.

If a filmmaker - not creator, because in an adaptation they're adapting, not creating - has their vision altered beyond recognition because of adjusting their project to fit canon and please fans, they were making a pisspoor adaptation. It's like Disney with Frozen. They claim Frozen is based off the Snow Queen, but there's absolutely 0 things in Frozen that match that tale. Nothing. They altered so far from canon but kept the clause to keep hold of the property when they had a beautiful original story in Frozen. Now, if someone else adapts the Snow Queen, you'll have people who only know Frozen complaining. In that sort of instance, I'd sympathize with the filmmaker. In this? I'm on the fence. Fans have every right to voice dissent at the way things are going and even create a petition to show how many of them feel that way. No one is obligated to listen to their requests. So long as they aren't actually committing harassment, it's their right.

Or more accurately…