#as well as the difference between good people and not so good people in general

[loveandleases]

What about the cooking skills of the other ROs? And is Jade cooking for Chris now?

I'll answer Jade's first. She's never had to cook for herself so she sees no reason to start now. She can boil water, or make toast. But if you ask her to fry an egg, expect it to be full of egg shell and extremely runny. If Chris wants a home-cooked meal, then they would need to go to their parent's house which has a personal chef.

❤️Cam is an absolute disaster in the kitchen. He tries, he really does, but it always turns out bad. Either things get burnt or under cooked. His cookies will always be chunky and raw, and his toast will always be charred to the point you risk a tooth. I will say that Cam will show interest in attending a cooking class.

💙 G - A good cook, thanks to their halmeoni (grandmother). She was very adamant about G learning to cook so that they could support themself, or if they had a partner. They're very organized in the kitchen and don't like to be bothered when cooking. But they would make an exception for the right person. You can usually find Kimchi Jjiga in their fridge in the colder months.

💚 Kara - There's a joke that the Clarke family is cursed and can't cook. The same can be said for Kara. The difference between her and Cam when it comes to cooking is Kara thinks she's a good cook. Many of her exes thought it was best to lie to her about her cooking skills, and thus she is quite confident when it comes to cooking…it's just misplaced.

💛 M - They're a foodie, so they can cook well enough. Adequate enough they don't starve, but they don't have the time or patience for complex dishes. M is more often than not stressed about a deadline so you'll usually find them snacking more than eating a proper meal. They could easily make MC some tomato egg stir fry, just let them finish editing first.

💜 Isaac - They're a good cook. Even though Isaac is health conscious, they're weak for comfort food. Especially recipes their mom used to make them. It's their way of staying connected to her even though she's no longer alive. Isaac sets two days of the week to just do meal prep, their fridge is normally stocked with various dishes. So, if MC wants, expect Isaac to be more than ready to teach them a recipe or two.

🖤 Ardent - Amazing cook, the best of the Ro's honestly. His parents own a taverna in Greece. Ardent was expected to help out when he was growing up, either with cooking or serving customers. So, he knows his way around a kitchen. He enjoys cooking for people in general, something about the control he can have in the kitchen while also ensuring people eat well. His baklava is 🔥.

[ihavemanyhusbands]

Saw you were taking Lucius Verus requests 👀

Perhaps something along the lines of Lucius rescuing reader from trouble. Hurt/comfort? I just know those biceps could hold me all day…

(if you write this can you tag me pls)

Oooooh thanks for requesting!!

(For the sake of this scenario, let’s say Lucius was allowed to walk the streets of Rome. Tw // mild violence)

————

“Fifteen denarii? For this?” You raised your eyebrows at the textile merchant, pointing at the swath of fabric you’d been sampling. “You must take me for a fool."

He frowned, his screwed up face uglier and even less friendly than before. "What is that supposed to mean?"

"For the quality, this is ten at best! And that’s being generous!”

"How dare you!" He spat, causing the stall's guard to take a menacing step forward. "This is genuine Tarentum wool!"

"I own such wool, and it doesn't feel nearly as coarse as this," you scoffed, tossing the fabric back at him. "You are scamming people with fakes."

"You forget yourself, woman," the guard said, his voice gruff.

He raised a large, meaty hand with the intent to strike you across the face and you flinched, trying to cover yourself with your hands. You grit your teeth in anticipation...

But the startling pain never came. You dared to look up as you heard the guard's confused grunt, and you saw that another man had caught his wrist.

"I would really advise against that," the man said, a dangerous edge to his tone.

"And who are you!? This does not concern you!" The merchant said, turning his glare away from you. "She was trying to tarnish my business!"

"Not without good reason, I suspect."

The guard tried to shove him off, but the man swiftly spun away from from his reach and punched him square in the face. You clambered backward as a full on brawl broke out between them, breaking the table where all the different pieces of textile were displayed. Your first instinct was to flee, but as you turned to run, a hand caught your arm.

"And just where do you think you're going?" the merchant sneered, his grip tight enough to bruise. "Look what you have caused!"

He backhanded you harshly, and at your cry, your savior knocked the guard unconscious and whirled around. There was fury in his gaze as he saw you cradling one side of your face with your free hand, and he took up the fallen guard's sword.

"Let go of her," he said slowly, pointing the tip of the sword at the merchant. "Or I'll cut off your hands."

Begrudgingly, the merchant let you go, and your savior nodded at you to get behind him. You hurried towards him without a second thought, instinctively holding onto his tunic. The two men stared at each other for a tense moment, poised to strike.

"I should cut them off anyway, so you may never strike a woman again," he spat, but lowered the sword.

"Get the fuck out of here," the merchant growled, his teeth clenched. "If I ever see either of you around here again, I'll have you killed."

Your savior did not even react to the threat, instead glancing at you over his shoulder. "Come on, let's go."

He tossed the sword on the ground and led you away, hovering close behind you to make sure no one else tried anything. Out in the busy street, he stopped you so he could examine your face, frowning. His thumb traced your cheekbone ever so lightly, which was just beginning to turn faintly purple.

You looked at him more closely, as well, pinned in place by the concern in his crystalline blue eyes. He was handsome in an almost divine way, like the personification of the god of war, Mars. He certainly fought like him, too, an undercurrent of violence under the flex of his muscles.

But you were not afraid of him, instead just awed that he had done it all in your defense.

"Does it hurt?" he asked, his eyes meeting yours.

You shook your head. "Just a dull throb now. Won't look so pretty for a while, though..."

"You needn't be concerned about that," he said, his hand retreating.

You swallowed hard, your face heating up at the insinuation. "I--Thank you for saving me, um..."

"Lucius, he said. "Lucius Verus."

"Thank you, Lucius," you said. "Surely I would be worse off if it hadn't been for you. Aren't you afraid he might call the Praetorian guard?"

"He won't. He would have to answer too many other questions that I'm sure he would prefer not to, especially about his business practices..."

You nodded, letting out a breath as you felt a little more relieved. You felt the urge to hug him, but instead you took both of his hands and squeezed them appreciatively.

"May the Gods bless you always, Lucius Verus."

He squeezed your hands back and smiled, inclining his head graciously.

"And you," he said, then glanced around at the busy crowd of the market. "I should like to be your personal guard for the rest of the day, if you'd let me escort you."

Your smile widened. "Well, I would never dream of declining such generous offer."

-----------

[transandrogyne]

i understand the confusion that arises here if you think of transmisogyny as the intersection between transphobia and misogyny -- and i'm not saying that to be an asshole, i'm saying that because i had the same confusion for a while. but using the intersection framing isn't very helpful here since transphobia is ultimately the consequence of patriarchy & misogyny which, as you point out, impacts all trans people.

so, the better way of looking at it is to understand it as a form of misogyny that specifically impacts trans women. i realize this is a subtle difference, but it is still a difference that matters nonetheless. it makes more sense, too, when you consider the mechanisms at play with patriarchy. for example, if cis women are subjugated on the basis of their ability to physically reproduce and are made to provide free reproductive labor, then what happens to the trans woman who cannot fulfill that same role? and the answer, both historically and nowadays, is the relegation of trans women to a sort of social third class. economically, we see throughout history that they are frequently unemployed or involved with sex work, which is a reality that cis women also frequently experienced if they were unable to achieve getting married, having kids, maintaining their reputation and if their husband was unable to prevent the family from falling into poverty.

this is just one example of many, but the point here is that trans women experience very similar outcomes to cis women because of patriarchy, but their outcomes more frequently resemble the worst-case social/economic scenario of cis women because they are trans. there was never an opportunity to have a better life.

trans men, on the other hand, generally have a different experience when they are understood socially to be men. stories of figures you could consider to be trans masculine are often described a women dressing as men to achieve a better life for themselves -- that reality reflects what i'm trying to communicate. that's not to say that trans men never had it bad or that they never experienced misogyny, but what it does communicate as that being perceived by society as a man has historically yielded different opportunities and outcomes than being perceived as a woman. for instance, when i read stories of historical trans men, they're usually able to sort of live under cover and work very blue collar jobs because those jobs were available to men. and if they ever had to resort to sex work, they would have to do it as women -- most johns are straight men, after all.

thus, and i'm sure you've heard this before, "transandrophobia" as a term modeled after transmisogyny doesn't make much sense because it would imply "androphobia that is specific to trans men." now, maybe you want to say, "well, i'm using the term not to talk about the intersection of 'androphobia' and transness, but rather transphobia that is unique to trans men OR the intersection of misogyny and trans masculinity." and that's all fine and good, but we've run into two very large rhetorical problems since this discussion started.

many examples of experiences unique to trans men are not really unique to trans men and there aren't very good arguments explaining why they should be viewed as uniquely anti-transmasc

many arguments i've seen at least rely heavily on a very gender essentialist outlook. i believe there are a lot of well-intentioned people who just don't have the greatest grasp on the mechanisms of patriarchy yet, but unfortunately this tendency has resulted in a not insignificant amount of arguing about trans women being male and therefore incapable of understanding misogyny and ironically misgenders trans men and denies many of our realities

i do believe it's worth talking about the experiences of trans mascs specifically because it helps us develop a better understanding of how we fit into the broader scheme of things and develop ways to fight for a better future. unfortunately, though, a lot of discussion about feminism & misogyny in general (not just w/ this conversation, i mean as a whole) doesn't really have a solid, materialist understanding of patriarchy and leads to questionable conclusions. in the case of transandrophobia, i'm concerned that the culture that has developed has only reified ppl's distrust of trans women (not instilled it, mind you -- once again, we have to return to transmisogyny here as a structural reality) and therefore severely stunted our ability as trans men/mascs to talk about ourselves in a meaningful way.

If transmisogyny is actually the intersection of transphobia and misogyny, that would be something all trans people experience, not just transfemme individuals.

If it's just a word for transphobia faced by transfemmes, then it makes sense for transmascs to have an equivalent word.

If you say transmascs can't use the word transmisogyny to describe their experiences, and essentially just use it to mean transphobia against transfemmes, then it doesn't make any sense to get upset about the word transandrophobia

[blueikeproductions]

Y’know thinking it over, I think one of the reasons TFONE failed, after looking at other comments, is it ultimately did nothing new. The marketing didn’t help, but I’ve noticed a lot of people be irritated at the modern 13 Prime concept and the more modern political bent (no longer Cold War inspired, but instead some mild identity politics and heavier ideological differences that modern audiences have notably struggled with) persisting, and this movie does little to change that.

The Bayformers films, love ‘em or hate ‘em, ultimately tried new things: The Allspark, reinventing the Prime mythology for its canon, Sentinel Prime as the best villain the series had, a group of ancient Autobot Knights that Optimus was apparently part of alongside the Dinobots, and so forth.

What did TFONE actually offer that was new?

Well.

Not much.

It was a complete retreading of the Aligned backstory we’ve been given for the past decade or so: Optimus and Megatron were former friends that overthrew a corrupt system that Megatron kept rebelling against, starting the Great War.

The same story that Prime did, that Cyberverse did, that IDW did, that Netflix WFC did, sure a few things were reshuffled but it’s the same, slagging story. TFONE even recycled Sentinel Prime as the main antagonist again, his motives not that dissimilar from his Spock adjacent counterpart.

People complain about the Great War being over done, but that’s clearly not stopping people eagerly tuning into Skybound’s version of it as of typing. General audiences, like it or not, vastly prefer the war between the Autobots and Decepticons, they don’t care about Grunkle Vegeta Megatron, his younger years as D-16 and his tumultuous friendship with Orion Pax.

The only thing new TFONE technically did was better establish Optimus and Megatron as being good friends originally. Aligned and the other series did a terrible job with this, with it ping pinging between Megatron already being power hungry and insane, he just hid it better, to him and Optimus being written as a couple who had a bad break up but can’t get over each other. TFONE still leans towards the later, not helping current situations but at least you do legitimately feel bad this time the friendship fell apart. The friendship was actually believable, that was the strength, but alas most people don’t really like the idea of Prime and Megs being friends.

It’s why I still feel the upcoming Age of Primes toy line will struggle, because once again, the 13 Primes are not a well known aspect of the lore, and modern shows haven’t done a great job at fleshing out Solus or Quintus, and stuff often falls back on Alpha Trion, a character from the old cartoon that people simply are more familiar with.

We desperately need to flesh these characters out better, we need to go back to a Vector Prime befriends the modern kids and Autobots plot for each Prime to make sense of them going forward. That’s the only way new fans will get to know them better and actually care.

As for TFONE, with current problems at Hasbro and Paramount, it’s not looking likely this story continues, but whether it inspires cartoons and comics after EarthSpark anyway we don’t know. Clearly the plan was to use TFONE as a springboard for future content, but it simply didn’t make money to justify it. If Hasbro is satisfied with it doing well on Paramount+, then maybe it evens out, but I legitimately believe the core problem has been trying to make the Aligned canon stick to most modern media when it clearly isn’t. I think we need a new approach, keep the Primes if you want, but don’t slavishly have it be the EXACT same story with them in each movie, comic or cartoon. TFONE DID modify the Prime backstory so that’s a good step, but whether they take that for future cartoons we don’t know.

[fiddler-on-the-starship]

Spoilers for Transformers One.

On the one hand, I do think Orion was right when he said "rebuilding Iacon cannot begin with an execution" (they'd just thoroughly trounced Sentinel in every way, he wasn't a threat anymore, there wasn't an immediate need to kill him beyond the desire for revenge).

On the other hand, on a purely visceral level I do not have a problem with Sentinel getting ripped in half because fuck that guy lmao. Get your revenge, Dee, you deserve it.

But on the other other hand, I do believe that Orion's actions were motivated not by any desire to save Sentinel, but by concern for Dee. (I think these posts make a good point about that; it doesn't seem that Orion was even deliberately trying to sacrifice himself when he got shot, I think he just wanted to get between Dee and Sentinel so he could talk to Dee.)

But on the other other other hand, Orion really did not choose his words well in that scene. "Don't be like Sentinel" was the WORST thing he could've possibly said, all things considered. A while ago I saw a post that described it as "telling a victim they're just as bad as their abuser" and yeah, I agree with that assessment. That probably wasn't how Orion intended that to come off, but there's no way it wouldn't have sounded like that to Dee. Maybe it wouldn't have been possible to talk Dee down from killing Sentinel in that moment, but if it had been at all possible, that was definitely not the way to do it.

However, while this leads to a horrible outcome for the characters, I'm not sure it's such a bad thing for the narrative. It's painfully realistic, actually. Sometimes, people who have nothing but good intentions will say stupid, hurtful things. Sometimes, when someone is in a state where all they can feel is pain and rage, they will lash out without thinking of the consequences, and in doing so they might hurt someone they love. Obviously in the real world this does not usually involve a giant robot shooting another giant robot with a laser cannon, but that's one of the great things about sci-fi and fantasy; a laser cannon can be a metaphor for the horrors we face in real life.

Also, based on Orion's behaviour up until that point in the movie, it's pretty in-character for him to say the worst possible thing at the worst possible time to someone who is clearly suffering. You can tell he has a lot of compassion and generally means well, but that doesn't stop him from being an insensitive dick at times. And I like that. I like it when characters have Layers. (Orion and Dee both have a lot of Layers, and I am fascinated by the way some of the same personality traits manifest very differently in each of them, but that's not what this post is about, perhaps I'll ramble about that another time.)

Basically what I'm saying is:

I think Orion was both right and wrong (right about it not being necessary to kill Sentinel, and right that a public execution was a bad fucking idea; very, very wrong in the way he expressed that to Dee),

I'm not going to say Dee did nothing wrong, but I completely understand where he is coming from (and I'd be lying if I said that when he killed Sentinel there wasn't a part of my brain screaming YEAAAAH, YOU GO GIRL, RIP THAT FUCKER APART),

I think that Optimus Prime should have flaws and fuck up sometimes, because that makes him more interesting as a character, and in the case of TF1, because having him inadvertently contribute to Dee's downward spiral adds to the tragedy of it all (and I do think this movie can rightly be called a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions),

and, above all,

FUCK Sentinel Prime. Seriously, fuck that guy SO much.

[velvet-cupcake-games]

It's About to Get Real Gay in Here

I am fully transitioning to work on John's route this week, and I realized that from here on out in the main game, all Made Marion romances are unambiguously Queer 4 Queer (except Gui's, which is Almost Certainly Q4Q But It Doesn't Really Come Up). I didn't mean to put the two most hetero guys first. John was actually supposed to be the second route, but his route and Robin's are two of my most emotionally complex to write and I wanted a break in-between.

For newer fans, it shakes out like this (in modern terminology):

Marion is and always has been bi/pansexual.

John is a bi/pansexual cis man.

Meissa is a bi non-binary person with a preference for femme-leaning partners.

Alanna is a lesbian cis woman.

Gui is some flavour of non-hetero and is cis but gender-nonconforming.

Geoffrey is a demisexual cis man (and probably somewhere on the aromantic spectrum as well).

So let's put down a few Ask Box Ground Rules!

I will brook no homo-, bi-, aroace-, or transphobia in the ask box. If your question is offensive it gets deleted. I've been blessed with a generally quite pleasant ask box so far, let's keep it that way!

Yes, these basic sexual preferences are canon. I don't use modern sexuality terminology in the game because research strongly points to pre-modern peoples not thinking of sexuality as an inborn orientation. But of course pre-modern people knew that different people have different sexual preferences.

Why do I use bi/pan for Marion and John? Because they could easily use either label to describe themselves and because I like to reinforce the fact that bisexuality is not trans- or non-binary exclusive. This is not up for debate on this blog.

I will be particularly cranky if there is hate toward John as a bisexual man who has had male partners in the past. I've seen this happen to other LGBT/amare romance VN developers and I have no tolerance for it. If I get flooded with this kind of thing, I will simply turn off anon.

In a similar vein, I have been open about the fact that Meissa has a penis. I don't do ambiguous genitals for non-binary characters because I write explicit love scenes and it would absolutely not be fair to be all "and then they touched each other in their happy spots" for only non-binary characters. We all have bits, regardless of gender identity. This does not mean that Meissa is a man. They are not.

Everybody good? Good! Let's have fun, be gay, and, well... as this IS a Robin Hood game... DO CRIMES.

[pruneunfair]

"If evil why hot?" What makes this argument truly stupid (Tw: mention of SA)

Im not against terrible fictional characters being simped for. I know I use the term "fan girl" a lot when it comes to problematic characters but allow me to specify.

I consider being attracted to a problematic character in any piece of media to be a guilty pleasure and we can't help if we feel attracted to them, that's just what your mind says is hot if the character in question happens to be your type but here's the difference between this and being a full blown defender: if you are aware that the character is a terrible human being or even hate that your attracted to them then that's fine, you aren't actively defending their actions, they just happen to meet your tastes whenever that be physical or mental.

So what makes the "if evil why hot" arguement bad if simping for bad people in general isn't wrong? Well you probably already guessed it but it's DEFENDING the characters actions. For example there's a lot of Matthias defenders in the cry or better yet beg fandom who not only drool over Matthias for being a hot possessive freak but they also believe that Laylas assault wasn't actually assault because she loved him in the end or that his behavior is excusable because he "made up" for it. Some even go as far as to drag Layla because she's not immediately reciprocating.

The same goes to Leon Winston from try begging who while having less fans then Matthias, he is still romantized for being obsessed (which isn't even a good personality trait) Ergi from remarried empress is a manipulative POS but there are many people who claim it's okay because it's against the villainess, never mind the fact that he later gets with Evalie who is 16 by the way and finally the entirety of Jinx in general (not even sure myself on HOW or WHY anyone can read that and think it's a good piece of literature just because it's BL)

In short: finding problematic characters attractive is okay, but defending their behavior because they have a sad past is frankly not just idiotic but honestly disgusting if you think grape is totally fine just because the grapist is hot.

Loyalty ≠ a good partner right off the bat.

[katerinaaqu]

The phrase was undoubtedly common by the time historiographers like Pausanias were alive. One common trait between people like Pausanias or previous sources like Apollodorous is that they quote a lot on the sources they gather from local traditions and different telling. Which is why pausanias as well as Apollodorous etc always say "I heard" or "others say" etc. The adittion to the myth roughly at Augustean times (potentially further back too although we do not know for sure) were already famous at that time and already part of beloved narratives or in this case a proverb. The proverb of Diomedes Necessity could even apply to the essence that Diomedes joins the war even if he is not part of the oath of Tyndareus (unless you take Apollodorous as a source. Then things are different) or at how he had to kill members of his family in the war of Epigonoi etc. By the time Pausanias collects information this adittion was already a thing.

Yes it is possible that as it happens with other stories of people who claim to follow the Epic Cycle or the lost scripts of Nostoi etc they often confuse the local tradition to the actual myth. But even if it is indeed part of Little Iliad still the reasoning behind it could differ. But either way all of the said parts of Epic Cycle are also not fully compatible to Homer or even with each other (classic example how Little Iliad mentions Neoptolemus as the killer of Astyanax briefly while Iliou Persis mentions Odysseus. Ironically most recently the version of Iliou Persis gained popularity especially with the dislike of Odysseus as a character by post homeric sources especially Roman, but in ancient art the most frequent version is Neoptolemus and his death is implied on different ways than than throwing off the walls)

Other traditions such as the infamous scene where Odysseus throws his shield on the beach and lands on it to outsmart Protesilaus are also not that much mentioned by the sources which always speak highly on the bravery of protesilaus and even speak on how he jumps at the same time as Achilles and just happens to land first etc.

Oh I wouldn't speak on that because of Pausanias because as I said above Pausanias seems to be gathering information and not comment on them or show his preference to them. I mostly speak on Conon's adition to the story or rather the detailed description of betrayal upon betrayal between the two heroes that were known to interract very well so unless Conon was aware of some parts of Little Iliad or even before like Aithiopis etc which indicates some detrimation between the two heroes (something that other writers like Quintus didn't mention to their work of Posthomerica) then this version seems more like an added tradition fired up more by the anti-odysseus wave of the time. What is more Attic tradition was also generally against Odysseus as a persona even from classical times by writers such as Eurypedes. Even Sophocles who generally is one of the most fair writers in regards to the complexity of Odysseus oftentimes makes him almost the antihero of his work (for example Philoctetes). My estimation is that at classical times when Athens and Sparta rivalry was on their peak, Odysseus as a peraona fitted more to the aspects that Athenenas placed upon Spartans; fight and theft. An Athenean propaganda that wanted to differentiate themselves from the other city states and claim how honorable and righteous they were, wouldn't much allow space for characters like Odysseus being posed in a positive light and instead that was used as an example not to follow or as a symbol for what happens under the table in a war.

If I also dare to expand it further from Epic Cycle like Telegony Odysseus is associated with the area of Thesprotia which was an ally to Philip or Alexander and the Macedonian kingdom was not good news to the Atheneans which wouldn't help the projection of Odysseus as anti-hero. So all and all I am not surprised if especially in Roman times such proverbs with this context would be famous in Roman Athens and even combine them with local traditions and such and given how the Palladium Heist is memorized by ancient art but never in a negative light makes me more convinced that this is a later adittion that was aflame by local traditions etc.

I am not sure if the theft of the Palladium specifically fires so much controversy given how there was also the prophecy indicated that they needed it. Unless they wanted to use it to imply that "Odysseus was ready to do anything to win" the theft itself is presented by the Epic Cycle as a necessary evil. I would say Athenean anti-odysseus wave is mostly linked to Odysseus methods and their propaganda against war in general and against Sparta in particular that drove this. Odysseus was a controversial figure even in antiquity given how his methods opposed the ideal of the time of straightforward fight. Not to mention that Odysseus was also married to a spartan princess which I am sure for a fanatic patriot Athenean would be an interesting controversy hahaha 😆

Heyo!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[girlactionfigure]

Enemies With Keffiyehs and the Enemies Without

URI KURLIANCHIK

“The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on.”

—Joseph Heller, Catch-22

In times of war and strife, it’s important not to lose track of the difference between enemies and opponents. 

An opponent is a person with whom you share a goal but disagree on the methods. For example, I don’t consider Biden or the Labour party in Israel to be my enemies. I think they’re very wrong about their methods on how to achieve victory and peace, dangerously wrong even, but I don’t think they actively wish to harm me. They’ve analyzed the situation poorly, reached the wrong conclusions, and came up with a bad solution. Is this dangerous? Oh yes! Is it hostile? No. 

Surely, no one will doubt the patriotism of the current head of the Labour party, Yair Golan, who was among the first to charge into the Gaza Envelope on October 7, driving a civilian car, to save lives. He just doesn’t understand the psychology of the enemy so he makes poor political decisions. I’ll act within the best of my ability and within the limits of the law and civil decency to make sure he doesn’t get any official positions, but I certainly don’t wish him any harm.

An enemy is someone who wants to destroy you. It can be someone hiding in the ruins with a rocket launcher, or someone manipulating global media against from a fancy office in a skyscraper. It makes no difference.

Obviously a Hezbollah militant is an enemy. Greta Thunberg or Ilhan Omar are also enemies. Their objective is my destruction and I see no reason to treat the Nordic advertisement against drinking during pregnancy any differently than I would the bronze age barbarian hiding in a cave with murder in his heart. 

Both literally want to kill me.

They say all is fair in love and war. This is a battle for survival. You owe the enemy no civility, no fairness, no understanding, no compassion. 

This is something that people must understand: when we reach this level of hostility, this is no longer a debate. This is war. Any person who talks about “decolonizing Palestine” or “dismantling Israel” wants to murder you.

The only thing you owe your enemy is defeat.

Not in a million years would I condone violence against Kamala Harris, whom I consider a poor politician. I explained to people why I believe that voting for her would be a mistake but that’s the extent of the actions I’d condone “against” her. I’m happy that she lost the election because I think this is in the best interest of basically the entire human race, herself included. Whenever engaging her supporters online, I always strove to act with civility and debate in good faith. We all want America and Israel to be prosperous and successful, we just disagree on how to achieve this.

Enemies, on the other hand… Well, let me tell you a story. 

Julius Streicher was was the founder and publisher of the violently racist newspaper Der Stürmer. Imagine if Nick Fuentes and Jackson Hinkle had a baby (I apologize for that image) in a world with no community guidelines.

Julius was such an extremist that he was condemned by other Nazis. 

That’s right. That guy was too racist and hateful for the god damn Nazis. This, along with his generally disgusting behavior, resulted in him losing all party offices by 1940. 

He spent the rest of the war as a very rich and very hateful publisher.

In 1945, Streicher was captured in Austria by a group of American officers. Streicher was not a member of the military and did not take part in the planning of the Holocaust or the invasion of other nations. Nevertheless, he was sentenced to death. 

Why? Because he was an asshole.

Okay, it’s not something you can put in an official paper. Here’s a quote from the actual judgement:

“For his 25 years of speaking, writing and preaching hatred of the Jews, Streicher was widely known as 'Jew-Baiter Number One.' In his speeches and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism… Streicher's incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds.”

I’m sure you can think of one or two people in the West to whom this description would apply perfectly.

After October 7, these people cannot claim ignorance of the genocidal intentions of Iran and her proxies. This was probably the best-documented genocidal massacre in human history. 

There’s no way Spanish Prime Minster Pedro Sánchez didn’t know Israel was being bombed by five countries when he tried to block weapon shipments to Israel. None of the groups bombing Israel ever hid their genocidal intentions towards the Israeli people. Nevertheless, he did it. 

He’s an enemy.

The objective of these people is the destruction of the Israeli people. They’re not naively trying to achieve peace using the wrong methods. They’re not just trying to stop the war because they love humanity. No adult is that ignorant.

They want Jewish blood and lots of it.

Their goal is the same as Stericher’s, only they’re more careful with their words. In no small part because of what happened to Streicher, whose genocidal rants made him very rich but ultimately bought him the noose.

So keep this in mind. We have opponents and we have enemies. 

Don’t confuse the two and act accordingly.

[alongtidesoflight]

so here's my honest thoughts on dragon age: the veilguard, after ~40 hours of playing. i finished the main quest after having finished all companion quests and major faction quests. just to clear up what content i saw, i played as an elven transmasc rook who is a member of the lords of fortune. he romanced lucanis (although after finishing the game i'm now leaning towards taash). i don't know what's happening in playthroughs that have a different race, gender identity, romance or faction going on.

full spoilers ahead, i mean it. don't read further if you want to avoid them. i don't want complaining about it in my asks.

oh and also, if you're worried because of a few negative reviews online i can comfort you by saying don't give a fuck about a certain big name youtuber who is very much tied to bethesda franchises giving this a negative review. i'll explain why.

i'm starting off with the things i liked

the game looks really pretty. i was worried it wouldn't feel like thedas anymore (with them trying to "focus on northern thedas only" i thought they'd make a clear cut in environmental design. they do and they don't. it's complicated. i'll elaborate on it when talking about the negative stuff). anyway it does. minrathous feels like kirkwall. treviso enchanted me like the winter palace did. the hossberg wetlands reminded me of the hinterlands and a couple other inquisition maps. arlathan looked like... arlathan. the crossroads were different, but familiar. overall i like the way it looks and feels. it's thedas, with a twist. it's a good one, and gives everything a solid but unique feel.

combat is top tier. if you're a hardcore dragon age player you WILL miss the tactical aspect of it for a bit, but i promise you, once you're used to the way the combat works, you will be lapping that shit up. and once you get to ability combos you'll mourn the control you used to have over your companions in battle a bit less

the MAIN quest and its story. i expected worse, way worse. and for a while the game even had me tricked (harr harr you'll get it in a second) it is Really That Much Worse. but holy shit was it good. i walked away satisfied ngl.

your choices have SOLID weight. there's consequences, good AND bad. i got minrathous blighted, ruled over by venatori, and the leader of the shadow dragons ultimately died because of my decisions. i made those at the beginning and throughout the game. he died at the end. DAVRIN died because i didn't expect what i was saying to have that much weight. i thought i was in the clear. he had hero status. well turns out, your choices can still get your companions killed even if you do everything right. i fucking love him. he shouldn't have made that sacrifice just because i told him to do everything it takes once.

the inquisitor, morrigan and dorian being there, surprisingly. there's also negatives to this though, see below.

speaking of companions dying and the inquisitor playing a bigger role: the final quest feels like me2's suicide mission. i was blown away by it and the fact that i got to see the results of all my efforts playing out in front of me.

bioware are NOT trying to redeem solas. they love him as a character yes, but i wasn't forced to see any good in him. he betrays you. he fucked my rook over twice. he fucked him over right back, for good this time (the veil wasn't torn down, i anchored it by binding him to it, he's doomed to uphold it). but solas really lives up to his name as the trickster elven god. rip to all the people who grew really attached to him over the years.

varric died. if you like him that's probably as hard reading it as it was watching it. varric died and the game lies about it until the very end. when the realisation hits, it hurts. but in the very best way.

the amount of care they put into gender expression and trans identities this time around. (i'll add onto this with negative points as well too).

rook feels very much ingrained in the world of thedas. he doesn't ask questions that expose the player to lore through dialogue as if he's stepped foot into thedas for the first time. those conversations feel very solid and good. i hope other faction players got as much joy out of this as i did.

and the things i didn't like and boy there's a lot unfortunately

the music. let's just get that out of the way holy shit. it doesn't feel like it belongs in this universe. it gets so incredibly sci-fi-y at times you'd think it's taken straight from mass effect andromeda. there's not a single song unique to veilguard that i really enjoyed. it broke my immersion, real bad. hearing a busker play the tavern songs from inquisition on a lute right after i killed some venatori with wobbly bass songs playing in the background is just odd. weird tonal shift. don't like it. it's made for people who like flashy light-weight cinema.

tevinter nights is required reading. the podcasts are required listening exercises. the game is so fast paced, especially at the start, that there's no time to introduce you to characters and how much weight their names carry in-game. i would not have known who half these people are if i hadn't skimmed over tevinter nights. i'd care even less about them than i already did. there is no time to get properly attached to them. people will act as if you're talking to a legend personified and you'll be thinking man goddamn which chapter of tevinter night were they in again and what did they do???

there's a weird mismatch with the animations. you'll have beautifully fluid ones, like emmrich casting spells. and then you'll have rook's face animating in the most unnatural manner that's sorta reminiscent of mass effect andromeda's "my face is tired" addison, when their emotions SHOULD be landing with the player rn instead.

i'm not vibing with the art style. sometimes it works. most of the time it doesn't. at points i felt like i was watching tangled.

that also brings me to some of the dialogue. same issue. i am watching frozen. i am watching tangled. someone on the writer's team really likes the adorkable trope. bellara is its victim.

for all the talk about identity, bioware sure doesn't like theirs. the grey warden armor got a redesign again and it just makes them look like a generic army. i hate it lol

in general, i don't like the armor design. the wardrobe/appearances system is fine, but it's just not helping if all the armors are just... kinda bland or downight bad looking? and don't get me started on the lords of fortune armor. that is orientalism personified.

the world states should have been carried over, full stop. i know they said they didn't because they want to separate what happens in the north from what happens in the south, which... i could have lived with that. but the inquisitor sends you letters that keep you up to date on... the south of thedas. you learn that there's a blight again, that people are standing strong but it's difficult, denerim's fallen, the rulers are taking care of it, orlais is fighting and they're successful for a while, etc etc. what's good bioware. i thought we don't care about the south this time around. why are you feeding me so much boring generic information. if you're not gonna show any of it and just write letters, then carrying the world state over should not have been an issue. i have a game dev background. those few lines of code would not have broken your budget or pushed your engine's limits. fuck right off.

this gripe of mine carries over to all the cameos. as a lord of fortune you have to deal with isabela a lot. it's fun. i missed her. you get to go drinking with her and taash and bellara! also my hawke romanced her. she's not mentioned once. they had the opportunity to put a sentence or two about her in there with not a lot of effort, trust me.

when varric dies, all she has is a single line about it. for gold, for fortune, for varric. she only says it if you interact with her on your way to the final push. that's not mandatory.

morrigan is there. kieran isn't. the old god soul that mythal and then solas absorbed? who cares at this point, the gods are dead now and solas is locked away for eternity. i suppose? why is morrigan there. she feels unneeded. i wish they'd just left her down south, at least that way i wouldn't have had to witness her god awful redesign.

dorian at least feels as if he belongs in this story. the shadow dragons are a crucial part to protecting minrathous. he's also weirdly underutilised. isabela and morrigan had more lines than him in my playthrough.

on the topic of romance: bro that was underwhelming. no, genuinely. you know when romance picked up a bit? after the point of no return. i heard maybe two lines of companion banter about it before that. maybe i missed something which i honestly doubt, but romance did not play much of a role in lucanis's storyline. i saved his grandmother as he wished me to (and if you read tevinter nights you know she was rather abusive and their relationship not the healthiest) and told him to focus on his family. a reunified family my rook wasn't even introduced to as a partner at the end of all that.

really, do not buy this game if you're only in it for the romances. others might be better, lucanis's basically gave me nothing. except for an outing (the second coffee date i had with him, it was getting repetitive) all of it played out once i committed to the final quest. the sex scene was a fade to black. annoyingly right after davrin died. if you're looking for well paced and good spice, pick up something else. the sweet talk and the final goodbye were nice though.

for all the good the ever-presence of gender identity does, it is brought up in such a disruptive manner too. it doesn't even play out naturally if you CHOOSE the lines that are meant to be said. hearing the words trans and non-binary in this setting doesn't feel right, and i'm saying this as a trans guy. i think it could have been handled more gracefully. the amount of times my rook went "i'm a MAN" as if he's about to start drumming on his chest and roaring any second now got super nerve-grating. "i'm so glad you're into me... the me who is trans. remember?" just. tell me one trans person who'd talk like that to a person they've grown close with and are trying to romance. this game doesn't handle sexuality well, so all this hey my body might not look like the way you're expecting it to look talk amounts to nothing anyway. i feel about this the way i feel about krem: this is partial exposition to trans experiences... packaged up for cis consumption. the ONLY exception to that is interacting with taash. holy shit was all of that heartwarming and bro did it feel good and natural to talk to them about theirs and rook's gender.

rivain and nevarra are new locations added by veilguard. they're also incredibly underwhelming, small and constricted maps. rivain is a coastline with a few ruins. the hall of valor is a partial ruin nestled into a cave on a beach, with a fighting pit. isabela is there in her skimpy outfit commentating your pit fights. that's it. i'm sorry if you were looking for a bustling pirate cove or whatever. you're not gonna get it. the nevarran crypts btw are a long ass dungeon crawl. that's it.

speaking of maps. i thought people were being dramatic when they said you're gonna be fighting the same enemies on them again and again. i thought they were figure of speeching it. they're not. you WILL fight the same amount of enemies. in the same spot. every time you reload the map. best to stay on a map and clear out the enemies and do as much questing on that map as you can before leaving, because you WILL have to do it all over again once you return.

the three choices i made for my inquisitor didn't matter lol she didn't have to face solas and therefore couldn't stop him at any cost as she had sworn (maybe because my rook tricked solas into binding himself to the veil, there was also an option to fight him. would she have stepped in? who knows). blackwall wasn't mentioned. and either her using a small amount of her forces in the final fight was the reason the civilians of minrathous fared so well..... or it just didn't matter. ultimately i think she had very little impact on anything

[tumblingxelian]

I intended to respond to this ages ago, I'm so sorry it got lost in tabs!

White Fang: I don't really agree with that stance on the White Fang/Faunus subpot. I think that while there was some major clumsy aspects to it, the overall theming, world building and ideas behind it work well.

RWBY actually acknowledges that addressing systemic bigotry is a long, frustrating and difficult task, not something that gets magically fixed with some speeches.

RWBY has different areas manifest different degree and methods f bigotry, from the tolerated/accepted harassment and presumptions of guilt in Vale. To the systemic oppression of a collective underclass in Atlas, with Faunus pushed even lower than impoverished humans to undercut class solidarity. Or the basically open-season, legalized but not well organized bigotry across Mistral with no Faunus signs and outright lynch mobs in the back woods.

RWBY doesn't presume that all rebels are good or bad, but does acknowledge violent movements can be very easy systems for bad faith actors to claim influence in, Which is historically supported, as the White Fang's fall can easily be compared to the corruption and fall of the IRA.

This isn't to say there weren't fuckups, the biggest of which was throwing away Sienna. But but overall I think the collective arc holds together a lot better than people accept.

Volume 1: My idea was more along the lines of Blake seeking out Velvet to see if she was all right, and Yang seeking out Blake & velvet for the same reason, but basically keeping herself out of their space once its clear she'd be intruding and giving them space. With a sort of quiet moment between her & Yang indicating "Yang knows" but she'll be letting Blake decide the pace of reveals.

Sun: The thing with Sun is that his main narrative roles were to serve as a sponge for exposition and on a more subtle level be someone inspired by Blake to care about Faunus politics. Or so I think.

When we meet Sun he's a petty party boy mostly interested in just dicking around and he has near ZERO grasp of Faunus history or politics. But in his association with Blake he learns, such as his initial response to Kuo Kuana, but also being told the reality of it.

Again, I think these aspects were made clumsy, by a mixture of factors, be they his role as comic relief, general himbo attitude and the un-needed pseudo romantic sub-plot. But conceptually there's merit to his presence both for the audience and themes of the story, he just wasn't executed that well I feel.

"Princess" Blake... Isn't a princess though? Ghira was chosen as Chief as far as I'm aware. The home she references outright has large chambers that are just filled with desks, this is more like a town hall that doubles as a house. What's more, Blake didn't exactly spend much if any significant time there anyway given she was busy being a child soldier.

There's a better post covering this topic, which talks about the cleverly subversive nature of Blake's origin, the foreshadowing and the fact it neatly avoids a ton of problematic tropes which I really like:

Hope this response was worth the wait!

fellow bees shippers i have a question. what is your own criticism to the ship? like, things you didn't like or you would have done different or added or removed ecc. including the interplay with blcksn and/or adam, not just blake and yang's relationship alone.

[an--artistic--autistic]

i got like 10 people to take the RAADS-R test today

the topic of autism and self diagnosis came up again, and i always go "the first place i went to told me to pay $3000 for the assessment + with a diagnosis there comes a ton of legal barriers such as immigration, so until all of that stops being a thing, self diagnosis is totally okay as long as you're looking at reputable sources for that information"

which became people comparing RAADS-R scores, and then more people started the test as well.

Out of everyone there, one person got below an 80— with a 20. (The threshold for autism is 60+/240, I got a score of 190)

[elftwink]

every day i log on here and read 17 posts that make me say out loud "you're misinterpreting each other. that's not what that means. that's not what THAT means!!! you're agreeing!!! this is the same point" and then I get so mad I almost explode then I do the Paul Rudd I'm fine GIF and I log back off. for free, even, I do this.

[waywardsalt]

anyways. holding linebeck gently

[astro-is-a-bigot]

Hi! I assume this post is about us but reading back through our post (had to do this because of amnesia and wanting to recall exactly what I'd typed) and I realised that I had made a complete misstep in anger, encouraging "flooding his inbox and notifications with hatred" which is so non-specific and not helped by my follow-up statements making it seem as if I would be okay harassing Astro on the same level or even worse than what he is done. This is such a big mistake I will likely private that post - but I'm currently thinking about how I can do that without making it look like I'm erasing those actions.

Note that the following explanation doesn't excuse that, but I will use this to articulate my stance properly.

Like firstly... I completely forgot that death threats were a thing someone might send to Astro. Straight up. I don't know why. I was more thinking along the lines of, "you suck!!" or "get off the site!!" which are kind of mean but definitely nothing along the lines of wishing Astro death. If I had wanted that I would be out here advocating for doxxing-- Which is absolutely not what I want!! As I've been trying to articulate in my follow up posts, I want him to be deplatformed - specifically from Tumblr! Xe can go exist on Reddit for all I care, it's whatever.

And my follow up being, "wouldn't this be wishing violence on Astro?" was so brushed off in my response that, again, it did not come across well. But when it comes to harassment, there's often people who will try to make out like the actions of people banning someone and getting kind of mean towards them is on the same level as the harasser themselves - which completely ignores the context.

The reason sending a bigoted hate towards someone is not necessarily equivalent to sending hate judging someone's morals is - as I believe I've tried to articulate - the difference between upholding bigotry and dismantling it. So while there are lines you don't want to cross, I can't say I'm going to be sympathetic to a bigot if they get sent some mean messages. And this point can easily become frustrating to explain when in one breath people will state to victims "just block the harasser", and yet someone sending a mean message to the harasser themselves results in the critique "you shouldn't be doing that!!" I address this in this post with the following:

[Harassers] also like to define what is "being a good person" because they're betting on you holding yourself to that. They count on your good graces to make you complacent because they tell you, "you wouldn't want to stoop down to our level, would you?" But you know what happens when you don't let the shitty person define for you what being moral is? You get shit done.

In general, I also made the assumption that others would have the same restraint as what I do (I personally have Astro blocked and would never catch myself getting in a back and forth with xem), but that's not what most others do. They don't leave an ask stating, "get off the site" and proceed to block Astro, report him, etc - he insults the other to bait them into starting a reblog chain, and they often fall for it. That is absolutely the kind of behaviour that feeds a troll. (Which I wanna note I still blame Astro for that because I'm not here to victim blame people. If someone gets emotional after being misgendered and sexually harassed, I don't see it as being "on them" for being baited. Especially since it's never okay to sexually harass someone, even if they were "asking for it". Ew.)

So that's a very long explanation of everything, but I hope it clarifies my views. And if you need further elaboration I will provide it. But I'm very sorry to everyone for being so aggressive and completely blundering my initial posts. I hope that doesn't stop others from seeing my point and helping to kick Astro off the site because, it must be said, the one thing that absolutely stops harassers from engaging with their behaviour is when you take away the means to do it...

So yes, deplatforming is very practical behaviour that does not feed the trolls! And if that requires making documents or blogs archiving bad behaviour and calling for action, that is not (contrary to how it appears) "feeding" the behaviour. It is, in fact, necessary to communicate and coordinate as a community to counteract harassment.

friendly reminder that no, death threats are not okay. no, not even to someone that "deserves it". who the fuck are you to determine that. you are not doing some Good Thing even if you see them as a Bad Person. that's a real slippery slope. it's not gonna make them want to change, either, bc why would you change for someone who's saying you should die. this is also about telling people to kill themselves btw. and don't try to justify it bc there's genuinely no way to that doesn't circle back to "it's okay when i do it" and/or "it was justified bc they're Bad™". hope this helps. 👍🏾

[camelspit]

hey. maybe you shouldn't write a book review if you haven't even finished the fucking book. btw.