#but i guess there were more factors to influence that decision

[mountaincryptid]

so poland's going for an internal selection this year

[meanbossart]

Sorry if you’ve already answered this, but I’ve been wondering what would happen if DU Drow and Astarion were the only people in their party. If they never met any of the others and only had each other for company on the way to Baldur’s Gate.

Btw I love your art! I’m obsessed with the way you draw characters and their expressions in your style.

Ohhhhh god. I think that would be disastrous.

My personal belief aside that Astarion is by no means an idiot (not that I'm opposed to participating in the smooth-brained jokes - but, generally speaking, I think I might give his intellect more props than most), he is obviously not at his best at the start of the campaign at all. He is operating out of desperation and it's only halfway through the game that you get to see some of that emotional intelligence that I'm so fond of. And even so, he still requires a successful persuasion check at the end of his quest not to commit undead genocide (and I think he's the only companion who needs a check at all regardless of circumstance or approval).

Then we have DU drow who has no attachments to anyone around him, a penchant for murder, very little skill for self reflection and a proclivity towards latching onto one person and falling obsessively in love, assuming that the person in question knows how to play him - and Astarion would know how to play him.

Lest we forget, Astarion had practically no influence on DU drow's decision to oppose Bhaal. He just kind of goes along for the ride until you hit the point of no return, and only THEN he's like "Oh, uh, maybe this wasn't such a good idea". Shadowheart is the biggest factor on DU drow's decision to oppose Bhaal, with Aylin and Jaheira making for honorable mentions.

Ironically, DU drow's "base" personality (which he has access to thanks to his memory loss) tends to oppose religion, gods, and organized systems as a whole, but I think if it were only him and Astarion alone, they would feed each other's hunger for strength and power enough that DU drow would arrive into act 3 with absolutely no doubt about what he must do. He would very easily revert back to his old, domineering personality and do whatever he thinks he must to establish his status, and most importantly his power over his loved ones, lest what happened with Orin ever repeat itself.

This circumstance would be perfect for the eventual Bhaalist DU Drow + Spawn Astarion scenario. Which just makes it all the worse that Astarion would have had a HEAVY hand in steering him in this direction. And the cherry on top; he has no one else to turn to here.

On the flipside - this could potentially turn into a situation where Astarion keeps DU drow small enough to where he's able to Ascend, while his Bhaalspawn partner either refuses his father out of fear or loses the duel against Orin. I don't know how viable this is, since Astarion very much needs a strong and confident DU drow if he wants Cazador to die - but I guess anything is possible.

The point is, if left to their own devices there would be nothing stopping either of them from pursuing their very single-minded goals, and I don't think there's a scenario they BOTH come out on top either. Between DU drow's obsessive behavior and been-burned-before attitude, and Astarion's distrust and fear of losing control again, they would constantly wrestle for the opportunity to keep the other under their own thumbs.

And hell. All of this assuming they didn't kill each other on night two.

Thank you for the ask and for your kind words! Hopefully this isn't too depressive/disappointing of an answer, LOL.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Please explain the relationship between HIPAA and second wave feminists being ok with calling adults girl

Okay, but you must understand that this is truly my most unhingéd, crack-est opinion that I would generally reserve for High Rambling. If I were a vlogger, I would be saying it in my car. I do not have "evidence" or "logic" or "a coherent argument." You cannot hold this against my actual thoughtful arguments that I promise I also have, because this is not one. But. Okay. If you still want to read my unhingéd crack. Here goes.

So, for most of the 20th century, it was colloquially common to call adult women "girls," and this was part of a pattern of women being infantilized and treated as children, and a big part of second-wave feminism in the 1970s was pushing back on that infantilization, including insisting that adult women be called "women" instead of "girls." Right? Right. But then by the 1990s/2000s, many of those same feminists were openly calling women "girls" and using infantilizing language (like dismissing women voters as "girls trying to impress boys"). What changed?

Now obviously the most obvious explanation, and undoubtedly biggest factor, in this shift is just the passage of time and ageing. The older people get, in general, the more they tend to infantalize younger people. Somebody in their 20s in the '70s would be in their 50s by the '00s. They might have grown children of their own. This is the logical explanation. Okay.

But also...

Until the 1990s, the status of patients' rights to medical privacy, autonomy, and decision-making in general was, well, abysmal. A lot of people who grew up in the post-HIPAA era don't realize the extent of it -- they think the laws around medical privacy were just codification of what was already an established cultural and ethical norm. And of course it was worse for women, people of color, disabled people, poor people, queer people, etc, but honestly, even for a straight white abled middle-class man, it wasn't that great. Doctors would tell patients' families a patient's diagnosis and tell them to lie to the patient about it! Doctors would go around in public talking about Mrs. Smith's gallstones! There were some ethical guidelines around privacy, but patients had no real recourse to enforce them.

'70s feminists somewhat supported medical freedom and privacy as part of women's rights -- like, they opposed the common practice of doctors bringing a woman in for a biopsy and just scooping out some organs while you're in there -- but they also weren't especially pro-privacy or pro-autonomy in general, and were generally sex-negative, transphobic, etc. We know this.

When patients' right to privacy became legally codified (HIPAA being the most prominent example), privacy rights were primarily defined based on age. Thus why "parents rights" advocates were outraged! That minors could have privacy rights for reproductive healthcare (but depending on the state, not for any other kind of healthcare!). See, prior to that time, "adulthood" as a status didn't necessarily confer a medical right to privacy.

(I'm actually working on writing something longer with actual thought and evidence and logic about the social construction of the "age of majority" and how it's not necessarily meaningful to talk about different times/contexts having a "higher" or "lower" age of majority without unpacking what that meant at that time... but this is not that. This is unhinged crack.)

And... around that time... you just... quietly... heard less and less about "Don't call adult women 'girls'" and more about "Influences on Our Girls."

So I guess the actual grain of theory behind my rambling, if directly stated, would be: As "adulthood" became ontologically defined as conferring an individual right to medical privacy, the authoritarian wings of the feminist movement quietly rescinded the claim that women are "adults."

I guess I could've framed this around Lawrence v Texas and sexual autonomy rather than medical privacy, but I happened to be thinking about HIPAA at the time.

Anyway, bet you're sorry you asked, huh?

[hootshooch]

ALIAS PICKS LETS GO

today im bringin up the refugee tiefling kids!!! and some other stuff 👀

Has your OC ever made any of the refugee tiefling kids laugh? / What about cry?

Who would call your OC their best friend?

What is the worst thing your OC does in their story?

buckle in this is a long one

1. Has Alias ever made any of the tiefling kids laugh and/or cry?

Oh Alias LOVES the tiefling kids. Alias has a soft spot for children in general (which I think there's something in the actual game that suggests that might be canon for the Dark Urge? I'd need to fact check that though)

I made a seperate post talking about her relationship with Arabella, but in regards to the rest of the kids, she did whatever she could to make their days brighter in the Grove and the Shadow-Cursed Lands (making them laugh, distracting them from The Horrors, etc). She was especially worried about Mol, but she wasn't very receptive to her attempts at helping her. But I imagine most of them (Mattis, Silfy, Umi, Doni, etc) look up to her and think she's really cool.

2. Who would Alias call their best friend?

Jaheira. For sure.

Jaheira tries to kill her and Alias starts chatting with her as if she's not getting the life squeezed out of her. Alias sniffs out the klauthgrass she spiked her wine with, points this out to her, and then drinks it immediately afterward anyway. She discovers that Jaheira has been knowingly housing the daughter of the general trying to start a war across the whole continent and all Alias says is "alright, I trust your judgement about this"

So yeah they hit it off pretty much instantly.

Even if all the Bhaalspawn stuff wasn't a factor, they still have SO MUCH in common. They're both Harpers who have quit a bunch of times and say they're gonna retire from adventuring (but never do), they're former soldiers, they share the same sense of humor, they're old and tired and kind of jaded but still have good hearts and really want to help people. They're definitely cut from the same cloth.

Karlach and Minsc are high up there, and Halsin gets an honorary mention too (just by merit of being their partner), but Jaheira wins by just a little bit.

3. What is the worst thing Alias does in their story?

Ohhh this is a tough one. I guess the answer is different depending on if we're just talking about in the game or her entire life (assuming we're also excluding everything Bhaal made them do against their will because I don't think it counts if their body is being physically possessed).

In the game itself, I think one of the worst things is probably releasing Cazador's spawn. I say this only because multiple characters in the game point out that—despite what we see from the few spawn we speak to— statistically, there ARE spawn among them who can't (or don't want to) control themselves and WILL end up hurting other people—possibly a LOT of people. Alias still firmly believes that they all deserve the same chance that Astarion got, but you can't ignore the fact that more innocent people will likely die because of that decision.

Alias also chooses to kill Viconia after she was defeated and I think that's actually bordering on an Oathbreaking action for her too (because she's not supposed to kill anyone unless it's necessary—and I'd argue killing Viconia WASN'T necessary). The game seems to present it as the "good" decision to make (because letting her leave breaks all three in-game oaths), but I think it's more complicated than that tbh

BEFORE the game, I have no idea. I've already decided that she HAS willingly broken her Oath at least once, but I haven't settled on the circumstances yet.

Though I can say I actually DON'T think The Urge was a huge problem for them until AFTER Bhaal was resurrected in the Second Sundering (because I think he had little influence over her in the Astral Plane unless she were to ever end up there), but I think she HAS always dealt with feeling drawn towards violence and conflict on some level (because this is canon for All Bhaalspawn, even those who never experienced anything like the The Urge). There's a reason why even "good" Bhaalspawn like Gorion's Ward and Imoen were drawn to adventuring and petty thievery.

I have a Moment in mind where she finally snaps and instigates a fight that was totally unnecessary and she ends up doing some... pretty violent stuff (which she feels really guilty about later). There are still large chunks of their life and backstory I haven't decided on yet so that's still up in the air.

[fullscoreshenanigans]

Is CloverWorks entirely at fault for TPN S2's mangled production?

I see so many people default to blaming CloverWorks for being the sole arbiter of S2's horribly disappointing production (sometimes Shirai is added into the mix too, especially by anime-onlys), but every time I do I'm genuinely asking the question of whether that's true and where they're pulling their information from.

I'm not involved in the animation industry at all so I'm interested in receiving input from people who are more familiar with it, but my understanding is the people in charge of the decision to truncate S2 would be The Promised Neverland Committee listed at the end of the opening credits.

(I could not find a single video of the English dub that aired on [adult swim] for the English credits of S1, so a screencap from the Japanese credits)

TPN Committee is comprised of the following entities: Aniplex (Distributor), Fuji TV (TV Station), Shueisha (Manga Publisher), Cygames Anime Fund, Dentsu (ads)

(Sources 1 | 2 | 3)

kViN from Sakugabooru details what a production company is in this post:

"I personally find it enjoyable to see who is involved in a show, and as you’ve seen there is plenty of information to draw from that. Animation production studios are listed in the credits for each show, so it’s understandable why audiences would imagine they have a ton of influence over a production. It’s even natural to think that the company that is actually manufacturing something would have great input! If you start paying attention to these committees though, you get a clearer picture of the finances of production and how each show is actually made rather than assume that studios that often don’t have much of a say are in charge of everything."

And CloverWorks is the more prominent name, especially for English speakers watching the subbed version of the series.

This is also something that Geoff Thew brings up in the last seven minutes of this video around the 18:50 mark:

"I'd bet good money that the last credits were supposed to roll right after that big stone door slammed shut, and I'd further wager that a combination of fan reactions to and dipping ratings for early episodes is what caused the production committee—who are the ones who actually have final say in this, not Cloverworks or even Shirai—to cut their losses and turn that cliffhanger into a skeleton of a conclusion."

I disagree with him on them making the call to retool the series during the clipshow episode between S2e05 and S2e06 though. It doesn’t seem like they had enough time to do that when a single episode of animation takes on average nine months to complete, even with the ridiculous crunch they seemed to be in. My guess is it was made back in early 2020 after Shirai made everyone involved in production aware the manga was ending that year, with the pandemic potentially factoring in to a degree.

He also mentions this a bit earlier:

"It's just such a slap in face to anyone who ever gave a shit about any version of this story. Including the people telling it, apparently, since neither of the anime's screenwriters nor mangaka/series composer Shirai wanted to take credit for the last two episodes. They probably didn't have much say in how it all went down. That's important to keep in mind before you start yelling at animators or even studios on twitter. I guarantee that every adaption that hurts you personally was ten times harder on the people who actually had to make it. As hackishily slapdash as this finale is, a lot of people probably slept under their desks to get it out the door, if they slept at all."

I always come back to this tiny addition toward the end of S2 episode 2 as an indication that on the creative side of things, in storyboarding and animation at CloverWorks, the care was still there at some level.

It was just squashed down in order to cut and condense 146 chapters into 11 episodes for a production that, as ZersEditor puts here, was "bleeding money."

But CloverWorks is less to type out, so they get the majority of the ire over a tragically butchered production in casual conversation.

[devsgames]

Hi there, sorry if this is an odd question. As someone with experience in the industry and as an indie dev (you), is it even worthwhile these days to be wanting to work in the games industry? either as an indie or otherwise? I ask due to the very state of things, Professionals are not safe from layoffs, indies have insane high bars to reach to even hope to be sustainable, it would seem better to maybe choose another career path in life (if you don't have an attachment that is). I say this as a long time hobbyist, occasional dreamer, but things have changed so much over the past decade that I often wonder if it should be anything but a hobby(speaking personally for myself). Like many indies I still love games and the craft itself, but it truly is like a roll of the dice just to stand out in such a naturally highly competitive field. that's not even mentioning the sometimes demanding volatile nature of the games community, or the work itself.

I guess it's all just kinda getting to me and bringing me down, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter, thanks.

I'll be frank: there are parts of this question I am simply not equipped to answer because there are so many factors that influence decision making like this. It's like someone asking you "should I have a child" - like I dunno, it depends on your whole life's situation and your personal values and priorities!

"Is it worthwhile" to get into game development entirely depends on what you want to get out of it in the first place, how far "in" you want to get, and in what capacity. As much as I wish I could tell people to go into games and have it just work for everyone, it depends far too much on what you value in life. It's impossible for me to reliably tell someone to do it or not to do it.

Generally, is it financially smart? No. Is it easy? No. Is it a safe bet? No. Does it take a lot of time and hard work? Yes. Does it offer stability like other careers? No. Is it fair? No.

Is it rewarding? Depends what about the craft you find rewarding. Is it better than something like factory work? Depends what type of work you like. Is it a good career choice? If you don't mind low pay and periods of instability. Is it stress free? Depends on where you work and with whom.

The industry is a shitshow right now with all the mass layoffs. This is true. It's The Thing on everyone's mind. It's undoubtedly going to make job seeking 100x more competitive and challenging for basically everyone hunting around the market right now in an industry that is already notoriously competitive, especially to juniors. Many people who got laid off likely are never going to work in games again, either for trauma or instability. It's taken the latent abuse and issues with technocapitalism and exposed it for everyone to see. If you get a job in games, you will possibly get laid off down the line. It happens to many of us.

However, it has always been this way. There were mass layoffs in '07 during the housing crash, and people got through that. Getting a job in video games has been an incredible challenge for the lst 20 years, and people have made it work. People have been making games in spite of shit working conditions, oversaturated market and lousy pay since modern games were invented. There are people whose lives have been dramatically changed by these layoffs, and some will never work in games again. It's increedibly heartbreaking.

Yet people will still keep working on games. I don't see that changing.

I've personally never had any illusions that games were somehow an easy path in life, nor have I minced those words with people seeking to enter the field. It's hard, time consuming and in many cases soul-sucking. I've always respected anyone who hung up their hat and went off to do something else with their life.

I know some people who left games to go work for banks where the pay was better and the industry way more stable. I know people who have dropped out of school because they realized job prospects were weak and they wanted to start a family down the road. I know people who left gamedev school because frankly they were broke and couldn't afford the massive debt that seeking a job in games would likely cost them. I know people who left games because frankly they just hated making games.

I don't blame any of these people for making these types of decisions because at some point it's a question of balancing your ability to survive with the ever-increasing demands of a needlessly aggressive industry (and it's a shame these factors - as any brought on by capitalism - weigh heaviest on folks on the margins). Sometimes I worry I'm too real when I talk to students about this stuff, but I think it's a survival skill to internalize these sort of things and factor them into your decision-making.

The point here is I can't in good faith tell any one person if going into games or not is implicitly a good or bad move because it's such a personal decision based on their personal contexts. All I can do is advocate the costs and risks associated with trying to tie it so intimately into your life - I think as long as people can see the cards they will have to find out how to play them themselves.

Same as above, I can't in good faith stand here and tell people whether they should or shouldn't do something like indie dev, because it has just as many risks as a regular dev career, if not more. Volitile game sales, highly competitive market, lots of work, little pay, self-management, etc.

I talk about this all the time, but unless you're the 1% of indies who suddenly get blown out of the water and everyone talks about, odds are good you won't be making enough money to survive on it. Way way way too many people who only hear of the most successful games treat them as the rule, not the exception, and then are shocked to find their game only making like, $30 a month. I generally don't think anyone should treat indie dev as a 'career' but rather more like a side hustle that might eventually turn into a career. Like, right now I have shipped 4+ games in various capacities, and my game sales are only enough for 1/2 a rent payment per month. It's why I took a part time job! Indie dev """fame""" I think is also a hidden factor that motivates people (why? Who knows), but it too is a lot like the money element, in that it's not really common and doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't put food on the table. Take these factors into account and weigh them as you weigh indie dev too. I

However I will say that I think like any craft, the current state of the industry surrounding the craft shouldn't (and in many cases won't) affect interest in the craft itself. I think if people want to make games and like doing it, they're going to do it no matter how easy or profitable it is, and no matter how fucked up the industry is.

I make games not because I want to be an indie dev or make money, but simply because I enjoy doing it and want to keep doing it. In fact, the times I've hated it most was when I was using it solely to make money from it to survive. It's why people still weave tapestries or practice weird obscure hobbies. It doesn't make enough to eat and usually they have regular lives and jobs on the side - they do it because they just like doing it.

People are gunna keep making games, because game development is not actually implicitly tied to the games industry in any way. You can make art no one plays. You can make art no one buys. You can make art for the sake of it. You can work as a line cook and make art in your free time. Game dev is easier and more accessible then it ever has been before. People will still keep doing it.

Sorry this all boils down to "it depends" but sometimes for big life and career decisions it does indeed just depend. I hope that no matter what choice you end up making that it involves making games regardless. Life's too short not to make art!

[maddiviner]

I don't believe everyone consents to everything that happens, but remember that in magic at least, there is the Law of Consent? Often used where you show someone your spell result before you do it on them. If you show them in a movie for example, your spell will have more power when you cast it because the person will receive it with consent.

Hoooboy here we go. Google was my friend looking into this, for once, but only barely.

My thoughts?

( In magic, you should be thinking about things like consent. Me, I wouldn't do anything with magic that I wouldn't do without it; that tends to be my moral code magically. It doesn't mean I never curse, but I do try to be mindful of how my magic might affect others. That said, this question isn't really about that... )

Spells and magic don't need the target's consent to be effective. If that were the case, the occult would look a lot different, and we'd get very different results. Furthermore, you can't make someone consent because... that'd be the opposite of consent, which is a willed action.

Showing someone media representations of your goals beforehand could have mixed effects just because people react differently to different media. It won't necessarily affect their decisions or the outcome of your own magic. There's no magical media mind control Law of Consent, sorry.

Of course, as is often the case, it's more complicated than just saying "it's bunk," so I'll explain my views in more detail, the why of it, etc. You might be surprised to learn where this idea is coming from, who is promoting it, and why.

I found the below meme, clearly an example of the concept, on a couple different sites using Google image search.

Statements like this of "I do not consent to negativity, spells, or curses!" posted in memes online, etc? Like this? I saw a couple more like it, a lot of them said stuff like "Type 11:11 to affirm." I don't see those as particularly productive, either.

I guess the latter part of that (above) particular meme "I call upon..." could be seen as some sort of attempted proactive protection magic in and of itself, but it's very vague...

No curse is going to ask for consent, because that's not the point of a curse. Curses are hostile. They're meant to be. Not all witches curse, but I'm pretty sure most of us that do aren't worried about permission from the target. If a curse is effective, the target's consent won't matter.

Your average malicious spell isn't hung up on the notion of consent. Spells that are more positive likely already have the target's consent. They, too, would also be effective without it, if well-designed and properly-cast.

The typical ambient forces, nonhuman? Usually have no notion of consent in that sense, either. That doesn't mean they're hostile - they're more like curious stray dogs. The stray dog's not going to ask before sniffing you, and that's not hostility - that's just how animals work. There's other critters out there, of course, but that's beyond the scope of this article.

There's no such thing as unconscious or subconscious consent, either. That's not a factor. There may be unconscious drives that influence someone's decisions, but consent occurs willfully. You can't consent to something without knowing it; and it's kinda creepy to say otherwise? I could see people going in bad directions with the notion that consent can be "unconscious" (it can't). Not really the topic here, though.

And anyways? An image of your desired outcome won't cause people to consent to it. When you show someone a representation of what you want, you're, at best, giving them the idea of it. That won't make them necessarily more comfortable/receptive to it, though. It'll put it in their head, for better or worse. In some cases, if the concept is vile enough, it may very well inoculate them against it, in a way.

That's all. This isn't magic, it's just how people's heads work. Yes, fictional representations of things can influence people. It doesn't overrule their ability to make up their own minds, though, nor can it make them "consent."

Here's an example. Reading 1984 definitely puts the idea of a vast surveillance state in people's minds. It sure doesn't get them comfortable with the idea, though, or make them want to consent to it. If Orwell had been promoting the idea, it might've been different? But even then, people would've made up their own minds reading the book, just like with anything. It probably would've just made them conclude that Orwell was a hack writer.

With magical results, it'd be similar. Showing a spell, or its planned results, to a target beforehand would have mixed results. In the case of some curses, it would make the average person more defensive or spook them. That may or may not be useful to the witch, but it isn't, in and of itself, magic - it's psychological manipulation.

With a more positive spell, I'm not sure what the result would be. It'd depend a lot on the target and their mindset. Some might find it inspiring, but others might see it as disturbing. In both cases, this could work with (or against, if you're not careful) the magic, but isn't magic itself.

I know that the concept of a Law of Consent in the occult and New Age community goes much further than this. It's not exactly easy to google and research. Searching for "law of consent" pops up resources about SA (as it should, imho). Though it's a bit hard to dig into, the origins of this idea in occultism deserve attention.

In most cases, it's tied up with conspiracy theories about aliens, "reptilians," etc controlling the world, drinking blood, etc. This article, as well as most others I've seen, argues that these "archons" must "obtain consent" for our "victimization." The Illuminati ask permission, apparently?

They, apparently, do this by showing us their plans in fiction/etc before enacting them. A lot of it relies on a reworking of antisemitic blood libel lore and the Satanic Panic. It mostly revolves around sacrifice and ritual abuse by these nebulous "Elite" archons who control everything secretly. Despite their world-spanning power, they still need our permission, apparently. It's not terribly coherent.

In other words, this idea (a "Law of Consent") didn't come from occultists, actually. It seems to have been a notion propagated alongside existing Satanic Panic legends. Most of these, while embracing some quasi-occult New Age notions, are actually anti-occult. They're also covertly antisemitic, resembling blood libel tales of children sacrificed. Seems like this "Law of Consent" idea has seeped into the mainstream New Age movement? Ugh.

Again, I don't believe consent is necessary for, or even helps, magic. Giving your spell's target a "preview" of the intended results can have mixed effects. The idea of a Law of Consent doesn't really hold water, imho. It also originates with bigots and awful people.

That said, fiction, media, and art can be magic. This would be what we call a hypersigil. They function like a regular sigil, but can be way more complex and hard to wrangle, in my experience.

Hypersigils can be works of art like paintings or digital pieces. They're more often works of narrative fiction, though. This is probably because most mages etc love writing? I've also seen computer games as hypersigils.

Either way, hypersigils are a real thing that people use. They tend to have wider, longer effects than regular sigils, in my experience. Grant Morrison (I'd consider them kinda an expert) says they can be "dangerous," and I'd agree. They almost always involve a lot of factors, and it can be a hard situation to control in the longterm.

They're not designed to "obtain consent" from other minds, though. They function like souped-up versions of normal sigils. The intricacies of them are a bit beyond the scope of this article. You might design a hypersigil to help you advance at work, or find love. Yes, you could, in theory, curse someone with one, like with any form of magic. I've never seen that done, though.

They're also, in my experience, really fucking hard to succeed at (compared to other forms of magic). I've attempted more than a few hypersigils over the years and had success with only a couple. Compared to normal sigils, that's not much. I'll admit, though, the (few) ones that I did manage were a resounding success.

A lot of it depends on how capable you are in your chosen medium for the hypersigil (writing, art, coding etc). It can also depend on the scale you're working on. A smaller hypersigil ("I'll write a fanfic" or "I"ll paint a picture") might be less difficult to manage. I'm not good with scale sometimes.

If you want to see a good example of a hypersigil in action, check out Grant Morrison's The Invisibles. Sometimes famous people (almost always artists) create hypersigils, usually to shape their own public image, but sometimes for other reasons, too.

So yeah. There's no such thing as a "Law of Consent" in magic, and those in power aren't using it against us. Fictional (and other) media representations can play a role in magic, though, and often do.

[dutchdread]

Hello Dutch! Do you think the loss of mystery and less impact on certain scenes in the narrative was caused by long-term fanservice?

Yes and no. I certainly think it was a factor, but I don't think it was the biggest one. If I had to guess, and since I am not a mind reader a guess is the best I can do, I think the biggest reason is the necessary change of the pacing of the game. In remake the developers made the (in my opinion) mistake of constantly showing Sephiroth, almost from the start of the game even. The decision to do this was based on three main factors I think. 1: "In the OG the first time you see Sephiroth is in Kalm, however, that is only a few hours into the game. If we did the same with the Remake we wouldn't see Sephiroth until game 2 and we can't have an entire FFVII game without Sephiroth." 2: "People already know Sephiroth, so the mystery is gone anyway, so it doesn't make sense to treat his appearance as one when everyone already knows him". 3: "People love Sephiroth so lets give them a bunch of Sephiroth!!!".

I personally think all of these are flawed. For one people are capable of influencing their mind state to resemble someone who is watching something for the first time. It's not exactly the same, but close enough, there is a reason people can watch the same thing over and over again and get similar responses on repeat viewings. When people love a story they are willing to watch things as though it were the first time. They can feel mystery and suspense even though they know the answer. I also think that there is enough happening in FFVII that you can keep the player occupied while playing a long game when it comes to mystery. If anything I think that the extra time to let mystery build could be used to enhance the experience, rather than making it feel drawn out. Especially in remake I think Shinra was MORE than good enough to qualify as the main villain for the story segment, and I think Sephiroth being only "a shadow on the edge of memory" for 90% of the game would make his unseen appearance in shinra HQ all the more terrifying. And ofcourse the reason people love Sephiroth is how effective he is as a villain, and part of that is the mystique. If you give people more Sephiroth you are actually giving them LESS Sephiroth, because Sephiroth isn't just the man, it's the idea, the presentation, and that presentation requires restraint in implementation.

My suspicion is that the mystery surrounding Clouds condition was approached very similarly. They figured they had the new mystery surrounding the "parallel worlds" as an overarching mystery and since people already know whats going on with Cloud that mystery could essentially be spoken about more openly. But this suffers from the same problems I mentioned above. I can totally watch FFVII as though I do not know the mystery, and experiencing said mystery was what I was looking forward to most. To me it's the best part of FFVII, and without it I barely even consider it a remake. And yes, I think fan-service did play a part. One of the things you hear most often when discussing the LTD is the retort that FFVII is not a romance story and that we're too focused on something that FFVII just isn't about, and while I disagree with that assessment, since romance ABSOLUTELY is a massive and crucial element to the story, I do agree that the romance is, for the most part, something that is in the background, it is the underlying backdrop that is required to understand the characters and their actions. But the focus is still on the actions themselves, as well as feelings and events that the romantic backdrop have caused, namely Clouds alter ego and accompanying mental problems. However, in rebirth the romance is NOT the backdrop, it's the focus of a large part of the game. Hell, the main play loop of the game revolves around you getting the party members to like you. And while it is true that this also involves, for instance, Barret and Nanaki, I think it's pretty clear that this entire core aspect of the game was implemented mostly as a way to explore romance in the game and satisfy fan desires. The question is, did that impact the mystery? And yes, I think it did. For one, everything related to Aerith and Zack in chapter 14 is PURE fan-service bait. The entire "can we save Aerith" plotline was fan-service bait from the start. And both these things, on account of both not being well handled, and overshadowing the actual mystery of FFVII, have a negative impact on how well rebirth is able to tell the story of the OG. Not only that, but SE tried to avoid burning bridges by not being clear with their story in regards to Aerith. I've heard people say that SE was wishy washy when it comes to choosing between Tifa and Aerith, they weren't, this game is about as pro-Cloti as it could be, Cloud and Tifa are a thing, if that weren't already obvious it's even more obvious in rebirth. No, the thing SE is being wishy washy about, is between Aerith and Aerith. Between the interpretation of Aerith loving Zack and simply using Cloud as a stand in, or Aerith as having "genuine" feelings. And the problem is that by trying to keep that a mystery they've made themselves incapable of properly examining either idea. There could have been deep meaningful scenes and conversations about how Aerith is still searching for the guy she lost. But they can't be that explicit without alienating fans, so they instead are vague, which results in a whole host of issues. But the most important issue for this question is that this approach creates an unfocused story, one that lacks clear direction. And a story without clear focus and direction will never be able to tell its mysteries in the most engaging and enthralling way. They want to show Zack, they want to discuss Zack, so they can't have Zack be a twist, but they also can't properly discuss Zack since that would be too explicit and so they half-ass it. They want to imply that Aerith is looking for Zack in Cloud, but they don't want to burn bridges, so they also want to hold open the possibility that Aerith actually likes Cloud for Cloud, and by doing all this nonsense you're creating a teenage love drama where you could have had a meaningful story about two people helping each other where the scenes could be directed to maximize the effectiveness of the mystery of Zack, rather than playing into a "I love him, I love him not" soap opera that got boring 27 years ago.

[wardrobeoftime]

what do you think about hotd costumes?

Some people think these ara bad.

What is your opinion?

I think the word bad is too simple to express my feelings because they are quite complex. In general, I think season 02 improved to season 01 and I really like a lot of costumes. But let's start on the fandom attitude.

I saw people criticising that Alicent has too many costumes and then also that characters rewear clothes too often. It feels like you can't please the fandom whatever you do. I personally don't support either opinion. Costumes should be worn more than once, to safe money but also storywise. Even in universe all clothes are handmade and throughout our own history clothes were not only worn once, even by the wealthiest people, but altered and refashioned again and again. I wish however, we saw the alteration part a bit more. Game of Thrones for example added further embroidery to many of Cersei's dresses for the second and third season and gave them a different look this way. I think some of the first season's costumes could be altered to fit the actors better as well as the new art direction.

Which I agree is bad is actually the quality of many season 01 costumes but we must not forget this was a Covid season and we don't know how much budget was actually allocated to costumes. From what I read and saw, they couldn't really do proper fittings due to social distancing. So costumes not fitting 100% became only worse with the unfortunate choice of some of the fabrics which looked cheap on camera, e.g. Alicent's red & black dress or Rhaenyra's golden dress that some dubbed the potato sack dress which I found hilarious. I don't know how to fix Rhaenyra's tbh but Alicent's dress in velvet or brocade would have looked amazing in my opinion. I will still cut the designer and costume department some slack since we don't know budgeting. Covid safety measures were for example so expensive that Good Omens season 02 cut its episode lengths from 60 to 45 minutes to budget for them. House of the Dragon definitely didn't safe on the special effects, actors or set building from what I saw, so my best guess is that costuming got way less founding than we'd expect. Still I think some dresses worked out well, like young Rhaenyra's orange dress and the brown coat or older Rhaenyra & Alicent's dresses at the last dinner with Viserys.

In conclusion, I don't think they are bad or the people making them lack talent. I think the fandom is impossible to please and there were outside factors that influenced decisions to the worse. But overall these costumes are fine and are doing their jobs. I personally can't wait to see what they'll do for the third season.

(Off topic but I also think people are talking way too bad about Reign's clothes and only superficially look at the first few episodes. But that's a topic for another day.)

[welcome-to-oslov]

Oh man. I just got to the point where Artur told Tilrey that it was him who made a split-second decision to leave him behind when Malsha escaped. The touch about Tilrey saying, "Oh maybe you just got to the apt too early or too late, I was at the gym before..." and Artur saying, "No, I saw your boots in the cold room with melting snow on them," was just 💔

I can see Artur wanting to seize a chance to separate Tilrey from Malsha. Thinking he's helping him. "So what happened? Did the Island Party take you in?" Oh Artur...

If this is definitely what happened, I say Artur definitely made the wrong choice. Though Malsha was evil and def wasn't easing up his mindfucking (and literally fucking) of Tilrey, I say the 3 subsequent years with the Island Party were worse than if he'd gone with Malsha - as Artur said, Malsha had less power in his new locale and Tilrey could've eventually escaped.

Instead, Tilrey got the harm of abandonment, grief, IntSec, and 3 years of various ritual gangrapes, uncontrollable multiple partners, dehumanization, and brutalization with objects, fists, & others by Linden. This continued to affect him all his life: overhearing himself being described in humiliating ways at Council meetings for decades, his own son being shown porn pics of Tilrey that he'd been so upset to be forced to do in the first place (that one hurt me 😢). Tilrey creates an impressive role for himself (his intelligence & strength put to work) and may even be the savior taking down the whole system. But.... I bet he could've found a way to that path through escape from Malsha in Harbour. Poor guy.

(Also agree with you that it's hard to believe Malsha didn't actually want to inflict this on Tilrey. I can't believe Artur, knowing Malsha as he does, would apparently interpret Malsha's reaction at being told he couldn't bring Tilrey as heartbroken?! Maybe Malsha was disappointed because he wanted to see Tilrey's face as he told him he's abandoning him and describe the abuse/fate he'll have now 🤷‍♀️. That said, Tilrey was still very young & they'd "only" had 2 years together, so maybe Malsha was just sad to lose such a hot piece of ass with a constantly distraught mind.)

I think you're right, Artur made the wrong choice, even as he tried to help! Tilrey could have been so happy in Harbour. He could have healed from what Malsha did to him—not quickly or easily, but it would have made a difference.

But Malsha's escape to Harbour was a bit of a leap in the dark: Neither he nor Artur knew much about what to expect. Malsha had lived there as a diplomat, but that was basically living in a walled Oslov compound. He and Artur might both have imagined that he would have more control over Tilrey in Resurgence than was actually possible, or that Tilrey would be too afraid to escape him. Oslov propaganda paints everywhere that isn't Oslov as lawless and terrifying, and even Malsha might have been subconsciously influenced by that.

Then there's the factor of Malsha's pure possessiveness. I do think he wanted more time with Tilrey and didn't want Verán to have his "property." I can imagine him debating the issue. He is a control freak, so he might have trouble knowing someone else was hurting Tilrey and he (Malsha) could neither control nor even observe the process.

OTOH, Malsha was also the one who called Tilrey "the key to Oslov," which could be taken as a premonition of Tilrey eventually leading the rebellion—or just a lucky guess. I do think that if Malsha were still alive by the time the rebellion came to fruition and could know how Tilrey turned out, he would be very pleased and attempt to take full credit for shaping Tilrey into a weapon to take down the system. Because he's just that twisted!

[orszemgyorgy]

Walking Away for Your Well-being

In our journey through life, one aspect that we often overlook or struggle with is the ability to walk away from people, places, and things that no longer resonate with who we truly are and the potential we have to offer. Strangely, this isn't a subject that garners much attention or discussion. I, too, was once under the impression that sticking around, regardless of the circumstances, was a way to demonstrate the value that certain individuals, situations, or objects might hold in our lives. It seemed logical to me that the more we invested, the more we'd discover their worth.

However, what I failed to recognize was the profound revelation that emerged from persisting in situations that were, ultimately, detrimental to my well-being. It wasn't until later that I comprehended the toll this "stick it out" mentality was taking on me. Instead of proving worth, it had become a source of self-sabotage, emotional exhaustion, and pervasive misery.

Navigating the fine line between when to stay and when to leave is a deeply personal and often agonizing endeavor. It's a choice that differs for every individual and is influenced by countless factors. The decision is never straightforward; it's riddled with complexity and emotional turbulence. However, I've come to a transformative understanding: choosing oneself is neither selfish nor arrogant.

In reality, it's a sacred and profoundly beautiful act. It demands that we practice the art of prioritizing our own well-being in a manner that is both wholesome and nurturing. The power and significance of this act should not be underestimated, especially when it comes to the processes of healing, transformation, and personal growth.

This choice, this act of self-determination, is a cornerstone of personal development. It serves as a cornerstone upon which we can rebuild our lives, recalibrate our sense of self-worth, and rediscover our innate potential. As we embark on this journey of self-discovery and self-prioritization, we unveil a path toward healing, a catalyst for change, and the fertile ground from which we can cultivate personal growth.

So, my message is simple: Do not second-guess the power of choosing yourself. Embrace the courage to walk away from what no longer serves you, for it is through this act that you can truly find your path to healing, transformation, and authentic growth.

[jankslide]

Individualism and Community

Something that I have been thinking about lately is how individualistic we are as a society. I was discussing with Matt. Basically we were talking about how Japan's population growth is so fucked, it looks very top heavy because of the absurd amount of elderly and the waning young population. Now by all means we are no experts on population growth or the social/political standards of Japan in general, let alone specific factors that can cause this. But the kinda general idea we were getting at was how could a culture as community based as Japan be having these issues? Like it's built into their culture the value of family and how they care for the elderly and the elderly stay active mentally/physically longer, in part because of sense of community within family and geographic neighborhood. Like the layman's understanding of Japan's issue is that the younger generation have no interest?, or some sort of barrier preventing them from having intimate interactions with each other. The Japanese young adult male has been characterized, the accuracy is up for debate, as isolated/lonely/overworked. Whether it's the work that leaves no mental energy for interpersonal connections. Or it's the overwhelming dread of the dating market. They have found solace in other forms, most recognized being anime or vocaloids. Which has in our amateur opinion, really harmed the population growth of Japan as a whole, causing these issues with a waning upcoming generation.

This entire discussion on Japan kinda just served as a precursor to some of the other issues with individualism. The use for television, and cable, as a member of the internet generation is basically nonexistent. You need it for sports, but streaming alternatives exists in league pass (or national games have the youtube TV option). Most people rely upon youtube, a number of streaming services, and various video sharing social media (tiktok being the largest that comes to mind, vine/musically once shared this market space) for video entertainment. The content that people engage in is so specific and individualized at this point. Couch socializing is dead. The fuck is couch socializing? I guess i would characterize this term I've just created as this: the communication and conversations that occurred from a shared bonding experience of indulging in TV. This is a time when everyone had the TV as their only source of video content. There were multiple people in the household, so the decision of what to watch may commonly have been an executive decision, but a decision that everyone would partake in ( a child's influence on what channel's on Friday night was likely nonexistent in comparison to their parent). This was a time when conversation could be had during the program, during the commercials, while you were waiting for "your show" ( another phrase that seems to have died) to start. This time just provided such a natural instance for you to converse with your family, roommates, whoever was there to watch.

I used to hate commercials, but I really see the positive perspective of them at this point. TV commercials were such a natural break in programming. The annoyance of the unskippable youtube ad doesn't exist here. You know roughly when the commercials are coming, you know roughly how long the commercials last. Need to use the bathroom? Want to get a snack? Need a beverage before the climax of the episode? The commercial gives you that break, involuntarily; yet so uniform was the experience, you could plan around it. The amount of marketing and consumerism fed to the average person cant possibly have been at a higher point than it is currently. Ads have more variety than commercials? Maybe, but not in my experience. I do have a strong guttural feeling that im exposed to more commercials(ads) than ever before in my life. Whether youtube midrolls, the youtuber's sponsor, or the myriad of scrollable suprise sponsorships on tik tok, the amount of messaging you're exposed are at astronomical levels. Theyre just as ivoluntary as TV, but the sheer number we must because of how diverse video content is; honestly, tragic how much of my visual intake must be ads at this point. You get trapped in the tik tok or instagram feed; the addiction of social media helps to feed more messaging to you (consequently increasing the value of advertising on their platform). Commercial were involuntary but uniformly lasted long enough for you be able to plan breaks. The trap of social media addiction doesnt allow this luxury of natural breaks. One swipe eliminates a tik tok ad. 5 seconds allows you to skip a youtube ad. This skippability is beneficial from an impatience stand point. But it secretly ruins youre self-discipline. No natural commercial break to let you think, yeah i'll turn off the tv and do something else. The ads are too short for you to divert your attention elsewhere, another design to help trap you in the app. It's crazy how these realizations have induced a longing for TV as it used to be.

The final point in this i want to mention is the value of limited television. There are just so many different shows, on so many streaming platforms, that cater to so many different demographics, it's hard to find the commonality of shows between people. Seinfeld is probably one of the most well-known examples of the idea I'm getting at. Seinfeld was a cultural phenomenon. Everybody watched Seinfeld and knew what it was. After the new episode premiered, you know that's gonna garner some level of discussion the next day at work. This was a show that brought so many different people together. It was so huge you knew that other people had seen it, so an immediate conversation topic presented itself. Streaming has its heavy hitters (stranger things for one) but it really isn't the same. You were limited to what was on TV. A show you didn’t love would still likely be one you indulged because the other options werent present. Now with such an abundance of media, you can find it hard to carve the time to binge a show. Binging has also killed this weekly conversation topic, but thats a discussion for another post. The point was the limitation of television shows helped to create that sense of community, which is somewhat lost at this point. Streaming, youtube, vimeo, access to bingeable older media has given too many options to oppose the popular culture show. You dont even need to watch other high production media as a substitute ( you got youtube with its variety of content). No need to buy the boxset of an older show with some reruns that intrigued you to watch the rest; streaming and piracy give you this option at limited cost or free. There's just too many options; the shared indulgence of visual culture is not gone by any means, but the point is how specific and catered it is at this point. The wide appeal and connection that this medium once provided has significantly been diminished. I just wish for a more community based environment; it's tough living in an individualistic society without a sense of how to socialize.

[sunnie-angel]

i will always be down bad for ex-friends to lovers with jason and this took the angst factor and dialed it all the way up. wonderfully written, i wasn’t expecting the dual perspectives so when it switched and we got to see more of what was going on in jason’s head i squealed.

But the faces that used to be eager to take your latest paycheck are running in the opposite direction every time you get close.

Lovely bit of foreshadowing, I wonder what (who) could have scared them off?

Then he says your name like it's familiar on his tongue. And then he's gone.

Screaming. “Like it’s familiar on his tongue”, god talk about a reunion

His silence is your only answer. He tells you to go home when it becomes too stifling.

Need to crack open his brain and examine it because WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU JASON

He lingers, once the media starts calling him a hero.

Does this influence his decision to stay, once he realizes he doesn’t only have to be the bad guy? That maybe if the public sees him as something more, maybe you could to?

You don't have to wander the streets anymore to find him, he tells you, after typing his number into your phone.

The trust is slowly mending 🥹

It's definitely not fun when you meet Jason's heavy gaze, and he seems more Red Hood than your friend the person you're still in love with someone you care about.

oooooh love when the red hood and jason are different people, the identity/priority issues are always so delicious

Jason doesn't know what to say it without hurting you, so he tells you to go home instead.

Screaming (I guess we did get to crack open his head lol)

"You were gone, and I was alone, and whatever you think you know about me is gone. We were kids– we were–"

Rae you really did take a crow bar to my heart with this one

So he cups your face gently with his free hand and kisses you until you're both panting and desperate for air.

Yay!!!!! About time you two

Anything for the opportunity to be near you. Anything for the chance to kiss you again.

If he wasn’t before, he’s smitten and willing to do whatever it takes for a scrap of more

Something That Used to Be

CW: Reader has a past with drugs and alcohol

When Jason Todd died, your entire world fell apart. Your boyfriend, your best friend, the boy you were in love with, relied on, taken far too early. It destroyed you. Ruined you.

It was easy to fall into the cracks and filth of Gotham. To find comfort in the mind-numbing drugs the dealers in dingy alleys were more than happy to supply.

To lose yourself in the underground, deafening parties that never seemed to care for your age.

It wasn't healthy. It wasn't good, and it took you years to find yourself again. You're better, not great, but better. It doesn't make the anniversary of him dying any easier.

You know you shouldn't, you know that it's a dangerous pitfall, and Jason would hate you for doing it, but you find yourself on familiar, dangerous streets on the night of his death anyway.

It's just one night. Just one night of dulling the ache. At least, that's what it's supposed to be. But the faces that used to be eager to take your latest paycheck are running in the opposite direction every time you get close.

It's starting to get frustrating, and you've nearly cornered Domino Dave (Yes, he's named that because he deals out of a stolen van with an unnamed pizza company's logo on top) when Red Hood drops down in front of you.

You flinch and shove your hands in your pockets to curl your fingers around your taser. That's– this is not good. But you're a Gothamite, and he's a crime lord. If anything, he should be thrilled to get his hands on your money.

"No one's going to deal to you, Doll," He says, cutting off your train of thought with a flat, heavily modulated voice.

That catches you off guard, "I thought your guys just didn't deal to kids. Do you check ID now or somethin'? I'm an adult–"

"Kids. And you," he says, effectively cutting off the beginning of your rambling and answering like it's obvious.

You blink, dumbfounded. "And me," you echo slowly, "that's a stupid rule."

He laughs. You're not sure why Gotham's biggest crime lord finds your misery funny.

But then he tells you to go home. Then he says your name like it's familiar on his tongue. And then he's gone. It sends shivers down your spine.

Dick Grayson is in your apartment when you get home. His ankle is wrapped up, and honestly, he looks a mess. You imagine you look worse when he tells you who Red Hood is. It saves you and destroys you all at once.

You're trudging through the half-lit streets the next night. It takes hours, but he drops behind you almost silently as you're crossing an alley.

"You shouldn't be out here," he says, and it almost sounds like a joke.

"Were you going to tell me that you're alive?"

His silence is your only answer. He tells you to go home when it becomes too stifling. And then he leaves.

He's apparently forgotten just how stubborn you can be. It's not every night, but more often than not, you find your way to his territory, the seedy bars, the back alleys, the quiet rooftops.

More often than not, he shows up to send you home without letting you talk.

At least, until he stops being a crime lord. He lingers, once the media starts calling him a hero. He doesn't answer all your questions, but he walks you home instead of disappearing.

He hovers at your window of your apartment and listens to you talk. Sometimes, he even talks back.

Your persistence pays off, and eventually, it's not Red Hood standing uneasily in your apartment, but Jason Todd.

He's not your boyfriend. He's not your best friend. You're not exactly sure if he could even be classified as an acquaintance, but he comes to see you nonetheless.

You don't have to wander the streets anymore to find him, he tells you, after typing his number into your phone. His chastising for doing something so unsafe doesn't even register as you grin at him.

Jason Todd is back and alive and in your life. But that doesn't make everything perfect.

It's harder than it was when he was Robin, to watch him get injured and bruised. It's harder when he disappears for days on end and comes back meaner and short with you. It's harder still when he tries to push you away.

It has nothing to do with him, well maybe it does, when you find yourself at a party where the music's too loud and the alcohol is too strong. Your old friends buddies the people who you used to lose yourself with invited you out. The sick, greedy part of you said yes.

It was fun, at first, to dress up, to go out, to laugh and pretend, and forget about the ache in your heart when you think about Jason. It was still kind of fun, dancing with strangers and letting them touch your skin.

It stopped being fun when the man you're letting feel you up gets torn off of you.

It's definitely not fun when you meet Jason's heavy gaze, and he seems more Red Hood than your friend the person you're still in love with someone you care about.

It's not fun at all when Jason punches the stranger you were dancing with when he goes to touch you again.

Jason's quick to wrap his fingers around your arm, after that. He's quick to glare at the people who invited you out, quick to guide you towards the exit of the warehouse turned rave.

He's angry. It only makes you angry in return. He's not supposed to be here. Not supposed to see you battle your demons and face down your temptations and wonder if it would be easier to lose yourself again.

You tug your arm free as his pace starts to get faster, nearly dragging you away from flashing lights and blasting speakers. "What the hell, Jason," You snap before you can second guess yourself, "What are you doing here?"

He whirls around to face you, eyes sharp and hands twitching like he wants to grab you again, "Me? What the hell are you doing here? You should be home." He gestures wildly back towards the warehouse, "Not out with them."

"They," You lie through your teeth, "are my friends, and I can go out with whoever I damn please."

"Not them," he hisses, giving into the temptation to reach for you as he grabs your wrist, seemingly intent on getting you as far away from the party as possible.

"Why not them," You protest, voice nearly shaking with rage and embarrassment. You hate that he seems to catch onto your hurt.

His grip around your wrist loosens as he turns to face you again. He steps closer, drops his head to press his forehead to yours. It catches you entirely off guard.

He sighs your name, almost in relief, when you don't pull away, “You don’t understand how bad I was when I first came back. I can’t go back to that. I need to be on the right side of the law, and if I see you with any of those assholes, I’ll probably just snap.”

You frown at him. That doesn't really make sense. He shouldn't care what you do, where you go, or who you do it with. It feels like he's barely around anyway.

"They're not all assholes," You say instead, a twisted sense of loyalty to the people who kept you from rotting away in your apartment rising in your chest.

He doesn't move, head still pressed to yours and eyes boring into soul. He levels you with a look, "Yes, they are, doll."

It feels too tender, how softly he says it. It makes you pull your body away, but he doesn't release his hold on your wrist. "That would make me an ass, too," you bite out instead, "since I spent all my time with them when you were gone."

He winces like that hurts, and for the life of you, you can't figure out why it would. "You're not anything like that."

You scowl at him, adrenaline still pumping through your veins, "You don't know shit about me."

The obvious pain that flashes over his face makes you regret opening your mouth.

Jason Todd has been keeping tabs on his partner best friend ex the person he wants to be okay, since he came back to Gotham.

It makes something in his chest ache, to learn what his death caused. It makes him proud, to see how far they've come.

And, if he threatened his street dealers to never sell to you, he's really only trying to help. It's an honest coincidence, that he sees you trying to corner Domino Dave.

His heart is pounding out of his chest when he gets to talk to you again. He sucks at words, and he thinks it's better that way when he tells you to go home.

He just didn't plan on someone revealing his identity to you. He stumbles over himself, the next night, when you ask if he was going to tell you. He might have.

Maybe. He hadn't thought about it. (He had. He misses the warmth you always seem to bring)

Jason doesn't know what to say it without hurting you, so he tells you to go home instead.

But you just keep coming back. Keep putting yourself in danger to see him. He keeps telling you to go home.

But you're always so persistent, and it only reminds him how much he loved being around you. So, Red Hood finds himself outside your window. He finds himself craving to be in your presence.

Then, he's not really sure how, Jason Todd finds himself in your apartment with his mask off and your phone in his hand. And his desire to be near you only grows stronger.

He's a bad friend ex support system person who cares about you. He doesn't say the right thing. Doesn't show up when he should. Doesn't make you feel like he does still love you care.

He knows it. He figures you'll catch on eventually and tell him you never want to see him again.

He also knows he doesn't have the right to have a tracker attached to your phone. He can't bring himself to regret it when he follows your signal to a raging party in Penguins territory.

He doesn't need to be a vigilante to know exactly what kind of drugs are in there. Or who inspired you to go out.

Jason will admit punching the guy who you were dancing with is not his finest moment.

Or that dragging you out of the warehouse and down the street was the best possible move. But, honestly? He doesn't care. All that matters is getting you out of there.

At least, he doesn't care until you scowl at him, and tell him he doesn't know shit about you.

He inhales sharply at your accusation, and he thinks he might look hurt.

"I know enough," he says weakly. How could he forget the feeling of you in his arms? Every memory of you is ingrained in every cell of his body; he just knows you.

"You don't know anything," You protest. He feels sick when your voice starts to shake, "You were gone, and I was alone, and whatever you think you know about me is gone. We were kids– we were–"

You cut yourself off and squeeze your eyes shut. Jason just tightens his grip around your wrist. He knows it won't stop you from slipping through his fingers, but he has to try.

"We don't owe each other anything," You finished weakly.

"That's not what this is," he says firmly, eyes locked on every twitch of your expression, like if he can read the right one, he can fix this.

"Then what is it, Jason," You half plead, and he cracks at the way you open your eyes to meet his gaze.

He doesn't have an answer. Doesn't have the words. So he cups your face gently with his free hand and kisses you until you're both panting and desperate for air.

His eyes dart over your face when he finally pulls away, hoping beyond what he deserves that you understand everything he doesn't know how to say.

"That's not fair," You choke out. But you're not running or screaming or trying to hit him. So Jason counts it as a win.

In truth, he's aware that it isn't fair. For months, he pushed you away, and you tried so hard to stick around.

That should count for more than a single kiss, right? But even now, all he can focus on is how good his lips felt pressed against yours.

And when he can taste you on his tongue, he can't help but want more. In the moment, that desire is stronger than his desire to not hurt you.

So he pulls you back in for another kiss.

He's selfish. He's greedy. He drinks down every sound you make and every thought you have of protesting.

His hand leaves your wrist to grab your waist when you finally, finally give in and start to kiss him back.

He knows you shouldn't be kissing him. He shouldn't be kissing you. Knows that you really should slap him instead, but he's grateful that you fist your hands into the leather of his jacket instead.

He's relieved, when you're both left gasping, that this time you're the one who tells him to come home with you.

He's more than happy to oblige. Anything for the opportunity to be near you. Anything for the chance to kiss you again.

[ramrodd]

Is decision-making influenced by individual differences in thinking processes?

The short answer is "Yes"

COMMENTARY:

Mister Spock notwithstanding, decision-making comes down to an emotional evaluation, It feels right,

Every decision ultimately comes down to a SWAG process: Scientific Wild-Ass Guess. The Pucker Factor is engaged, big time, One of the things you have to learn to do to be qualified to fly on instruments is to believe your instruments not matter haw insane it feels, This is where Reason earns its keep.

I have no magic formula for decision making as a process theology guru, I have some useful tools for constantly improving your personal decision-making for fun and profit or in the line of duty, The Pursuit of Happiness requires decision-making, Benjamin Franklin is the source of the Pursuit of Happiness that harnesses the entrepreneurial impulse of the LOGOS being in the world. A self-actualizing, wlf0aware being in the word.

In poker, if you can fuse your Pucker Factor to probability, you will be able to earn an honest and comfortable living, There is more to poker than probability, but if you are a high stakes player, the Zen of your decision making process is reflected in every bet you make. I’m not component at poker, mostly because I don’t like risking money, Period. I prefer cribbage, I learned to play from an Army wife who had been a POW in the Philippines. We played for Blood Points: if you missed a combination, your opponent could them if it could be demonstrated. The first decision is what to discard. Then the cut determined the range of tactics you held. Most of the emotion was wrung out of each decision as the play progressed. The options became pretty binary until there were hats on the green.

So, in your own decision method, identify your Zen moment in all your decisions in something you love. The Zen moment is when you have thrown the dice and they are tumbling, At that moment, you are one with the universe. It should be a moment of serenity,

And that is what process theology is all about in the Gospel of Mark,

[youmissedone]

“No, um, I’ve known for a while now,” K-Mart said, smiling pensively. “I just never really had the opportunity to come out before, and I was afraid that I’d be wrong somehow. Like I’d come out, but then I wouldn’t actually be trans or bi, and everyone would think I’m a liar. But then you all started calling me K-Mart instead of deadnaming me, and Claire offered to help me with voice training, and I didn’t have to wear any especially gendered clothing, and it just… clicked, I guess. I wasn’t ever wrong.”

K-Mart’s decision to come out to Carlos had been influenced by a few factors, but it was mainly because she viewed him as a father figure. His kindness and care for her rivaled her own biological family’s, and he seemed very welcoming of others and their identities. If he couldn’t accept her, then who would?

“Well,” she started, giggling a little at Carlos’ comments about being basic, “I wouldn’t call whatever you and Claire have got going on ‘basic’, but we all have our own opinions.”

The way Claire and Carlos had willingly taken K-Mart in during the worst of the apocalypse was something she’d always love them for. To some extent, she viewed them as parental figures, and they’d both cared for her as such. K-Mart wasn’t sure if either of them would’ve ever had kids if life was still normal, but the found family they’d created with the convoy was something she’d always love them for. She wondered sometimes if they’d ever consider adopting her, even if not legally. They’d both accepted her without question when she came out to them, something her biological parents would never have done.

“It’s easier being with you guys sometimes, cause I’m pretty sure my parents would’ve kicked me out if they survived any of this, so… there’s that.” K-Mart paused and swallowed hard. “I know we just met that new girl, Bella, and she said she wanted to join the convoy. She told me she was adopted, and we’re both sixteen, so I guess I just thought… if you and Claire… I probably wouldn’t have anyone to stay with, y’know, if we ever found the antivirus and things went back to normal. You’re basically like family, anyway, so I guess what I’m asking is… would you guys ever want that? Because I think I’d really like that.”

__________

“Well... you can change your mind anytime you want, who cares what anyone else thinks?” Carlos said, shrugging. “No one can tell you who you are or want for yourself, only you can. And it’s not really changing your mind, it’s self-discovery. Sometimes with a little more time and thought you realize things about yourself that you didn’t know before, or you narrow down what you want or feel. There’s nothing wrong with that at all, like you said. But I’m glad that things clicked for you. That’s got to be a great feeling, when it all comes together. You do you, ‘cause it’s a pretty cool ‘you’ to be, if you ask me,” he said with a smile.

He chuckled a bit at her assessment of his and Claire’s relationship. “Eh, we don’t put labels on anything. There isn’t a need to,” he said. Carlos wasn’t exactly sure where he stood with Claire, but he also wasn’t willing to try to ask or force a definition from her and risk making things weird between them. What they had was working, whatever it was, and he’d just as soon leave it be... unless she wanted more. “Wait, ‘we all?’ We all have our opinions?” He chuckled again. “I wasn’t aware that me and Claire were the talk of the convoy." As long as it gave them something to distract them from the fear and horror of daily life, then Carlos was fine with it. He just didn’t see what all the fuss was about.

Hearing how she thought her parents might have reacted to her if her family had survived the apocalypse, Carlos frowned, his gaze falling a bit. He didn’t understand how anyone could abandon family over something like that, especially a child. Or... young person, since K-mart was growing up quickly and was at that age where being thought of as a child wasn’t ideal. “I’m sorry to hear that. But you don’t know for sure that would’ve happened, right? And at this point, you’ll never know. So... assume the best of them and try to let it go. Don’t let what-ifs get you down, especially if there’s no way of knowing either way.”

As K-mart shyly asked if he and Claire would be interested in adopting her, Carlos turned to humor at first to help her relax, as he often did with everyone. “You just want a really cool dad. I mean, come on, admit it, I’m as cool as dads come,” Carlos said with a big grin. Getting down to business, he got a bit more serious now. “Listen, I can’t speak for Claire, so you’d have to ask her directly how she feels about it, but... you’ll always have a place with me. If you want to make it official, we don’t need to wait for an antivirus that might never come anyway. I’d be honored to adopt you. And one good thing about adopting in this day and age... we don’t have to wait for a bunch of annoying paperwork to go through,” he said, his smile lingering. “If that’s something you want, I’m all for it.”

[structures-of-perspective]

The greatest lie ever told was that lies don't exist. Well that's a bit of a lie, but how? As if i could say. And perhaps also it's just yet another metaphor, an asymetric characterization which has no effect on the truth of what it refers to, effected by it but not so much in the reverse, only insofaras it is inaccurately representing that thing which it points to as being (essentially) what it is, whether explicitly or not, directly or not, or from any way it is conveyed.

It describes, for a definition, as any may be or contain lies. Definitions don't determine truth, except to the extents to which defining impacts subsequent interactions, only under such influences do definitions make truth. If any words guide my actions, for example, they become realer than they were by doing more than just saying, but the critical difference there is still me and my own interpretations, for however observant I might be or not, rather than to attribute any supposed corporeal effects of the incorporeality of thought as being supernatural consciousness(es), which is an unfortunately common byproduct of any miscalibrated sense, as when off reasoning leads one astray from an accurate understanding of reality.

To consider any observation, we each have a limited perspective. For anything we can think of, there is more to it than all of what we might consider. No one knows everything. (No one knows it all and nothing can know it all; Everything can't but for a functionless counterfactual tautology, which would necessiarily conflate knowledge with existence ['all of the stuff is different stuff! pfft', if it were, we would be observing overlapping independent realities– each accessible, each operating entirely uneffected by the other, each cohesively occupying precisely the same space ... simultaneous yet different yet equally sound- laws of nature that map onto eachother and are symetric yet irreflexive]; and certainly not absolute Nothingness, because if that actually existed then nothing would exist, and that would preclude all thought.

For all our thoughts, we can guess until the end of our days and still be significantly different from hypothetical absolute accuracy; perhaps sufficient enough to warrant questioning of any idea in a cooperative environment. Any askers are capable of asking anything they can think of and convey. It takes time and effort but planning is the heading we've been going with, so thoughts ahoy! As we try to find the most efficacious view for anything we might consider. And there's much to consider about considering.

For example, supposing that it's ever better to pretend that 'Not is So', which of these is the better way to pretend it so (supposing a bias towards- more efficiently motivating towards relevant goals): Of deviance, is it radically or barely? Of bias, is it contrarian or supportive? Of significance, is it ... ? What're the tipping points in those terms? How and why? About anything, everything, all or nothing, or anywhere inbetween? How far do we think astray from reality, in what ways, and why?

We account for such things as thoughts to clarify any rendered model of a mechanism for self improvement in any approach (rigorously formulated or not, does the account account for the breadth and depth of critical factors within relevant contexts?), seeing as how we have persisted by being biased towards the impetus of persistence, as self preservation is individuated as a parsing of effective capabilities within one's environment. For any interaction, to the extent we might consider its possibility in relation to any other speculation: how do all relevant predictibles culminate? and in what ways would the biggest potentials change things? and what would be the long term effects of adopting either a one-time decision or a policy, as opposed to any other, supposing expectations with an expected accuracy? We can try to improve, but the plan doesn't always go according to plan.

To put it another way, looking backwards instead, our stories are not the events we describe. We can only speak more or less accurately. So how do we decide what is best to relate? And how do we best relate any information? ... what are the most accurately, efficiently, significantly related measures for any context?

I heartily agree that no question isnt worth asking, if that's what's of concern enough to ask, then who am i to question what questions any may have. To wit, in witnessing several assertions of refutation, i've heard combative questions aplenty– some intentionally defiant responses, guised rebukes probing for the limits of purposelessness, in the form of absurd irrelevance or otherwise rhetorically vapid questions. But for these I only characterize, not reiterate, yet enough to say that any joke might diminish any otherwise sound question. I'm barring it in my mind, if a question isn't a question to me, then it ain't a question; but it could also be a question for someone else, and that's mostly just how it is. Atleast we tend to coordinate around reality.

Try forming questions out of any of your known answers and see if you don't find even more questions there. "Why ... ?" is a shortcut to reverse engineer "How ... ?"; from a past perspective of the future, thru the present; or from plan to process. Why? Because with goals we can do more, better. How? By choosing our own (adventures) questions, we're more relevantly, significantly, and thereby efficiently able to learn from reality and improve, certainly. For example consider:

∀P(E) = x, Let ⁱ = 1 :: impartiality, for ⁱ an exponential curve thresholding sufficient credence (since things can be in want of more convincing or are more convincing), for ⁱ approaching 1 treading linearly determined, with neutral bias at linear until determined otherwise, find non-impartial biases not otherwise explicated. Ok but why? To be determined. How might ⁱ be determined for the following to hold?:

f(x) = |2(x-½)|ⁱ :: certainty

The outcome of a fair coin flip is maximally uncertain at zero. Indeed every equiprobable set of possibilities has maximum uncertainty by this definition and certainty approaches the impossibility of all but one possibility at one, from probability x at either 0 or 1.