#but there was also no reason to assume i was making a moral statement rather an emotional one. no need to assume i’m evil and stupid

[murderballadeer]

learning to block the bad faith comments and delete my own poorly worded post and move on instead of getting upset 🧘‍♀️🧘‍♀️🧘‍♀️

[cripplecharacters]

Do you have any advice on how can I write an intellectually disabled character acting manipulative/lying (as a personal bad habit of theirs) without it coming off in bad taste?

They're a quite complex character with many conflicting feelings and motivations for sometimes falling into such behaviors; one of the reasons I started working on them was me getting sick of the "pure kind sweet angel who can never lie or do wrong unlike us, evil selfish cunning humans" trope for characters with ID.

The story has a lot of other disabled characters, (including characters with developmental disabilities) who don't act like that, but maybe I can do something else to convey that this is a behavior trait specific to this character and their personality/background, and not in any way some sort of statement on disabled people in general?

Hi!

Funnily enough, I feel like we are for the most part we tend to be pretty bad at lying (or at least I am. perhaps a skill issue?). Most people with ID I know (myself included) have the "omitting crucial information on purpose" type of lying rather than "just making shit up". I think because the first one is easier and the latter leaves a lot of room for holes that are easier to overlook when you are intellectually disabled.

What I would actually try to do with an intellectually disabled character lying is to make it clear that it's a conscious decision that they're making. One, because we can do morally questionable things, two, something about an intellectually disabled character being assumed to be lying when they aren't feels... bad for some reason (as in, makes me very uncomfortable on a personal level).

I would also advise treating your ID character in the same way that you would treat any other one; if someone does catch them lying about something important, they shouldn't be treated like a baby who doesn't know what they were doing.

You also said that it's a complex character and that they have actual motivations for acting in this way, which is great - you're not making it seem like "person with ID=lying" but rather just "pwID = could lie if has the right reason to" which is true for intellectually disabled people as much as for everyone else.

If you have more ID/DD characters, then you're probably fine! As a rule of thumb, I try to look for patterns when it comes to implications like that; e.g. if you had a singular character, and they were manipulative then that could be a problem, but if you have five and one of them is, then that's kinda just how people can be lol. That's also true for many tropes I feel like, there will be a difference between 100% and 20% of characters being stereotypes, sometimes people do fit the stereotype in one way or another while also still being complex outside of that.

I hope this helps!

mod Sasza

[transmutationisms]

If the biopsychsocial disease model is ontologically and epistemically dubious, tautological and smuggling moralizing language into seemingly descriptive statements, what other ways are there to understand "disease"? Can parts of medicalized language still be utilized by stripping them of this baggage, or is it a fool's errand?

im assuming this is in response to what i said about the biopsychosocial model wrt eating disorders. mostly what i meant in those tags was that i don't find bps to be a sufficient response or correction to the issues with the biomedical model where psychiatric diagnoses are concerned. this is for numerous reasons including that bps is chronically philosophically eclectic and predominantly dualist epistemologically; s nassir ghaemi has written on this.

anyway, the question to me would be: why would we want to use medicine's discourses in understanding 'eating disorders'? which terms, and to what ends? these are complex presentations because, obviously, there are serious physical complications from behaviours like food restriction and purging. so my point here isn't that it's not useful to talk about medical issues in medical language. (jennifer gaudiani's book 'sick enough' is a pretty good starter resource for patients on the medical complications of ed's, and the physician's concerns in treating them.)

rather, with the 'eating disorder' diagnoses, we're also dealing with the underlying desires and intentions that cause the food/body behaviours in question. although energy deprivation itself can and does intensify such desires/thought cycles, the vast majority of eating disorders do involve some degree of voluntary action and can't be resolved solely through physical treatment of malnutrition/starvation/ etc. on a disease model of eating disorders, the desire to starve/purge/etc is essentially a foreign intrusion on the sufferer's newly 'unhealthy' mind; some doctors will even go so far as to talk about the patient as 'split' into two people: the sick person, and the healthy one. the treatment modality here assumes that the goal is to expel or overcome 'the eating disorder thoughts', restoring the person to a 'normal', 'healthy' baseline.

i know that some people with these diagnoses find this ^^ narrative personally helpful and i don't wish to take that away from them. nevertheless, i believe it's insufficient and actively harmful to some people. it doesn't look at, for instance, the economic and social effects of weight stigma, something that makes 'disordered eating' appear a lot less disordered and a lot more rational and socially normative/enforced. the narrative also does a poor job, if any, of understanding food restriction/purging/etc as ways to manage stress/anxiety/etc, making the 'eating disorder' appear to be not so much an outside forceor attacker, but rather a person's best (though harmful!) tool for self-care. fundamentally the assumption in the above narrative is basically that no self-endangering desire could ever be 'native' to the psyche, that it must originate from elsewhere, and that a person can't truly desire two contradictory things or defend two contradictory interests. i don't find these assumptions to be true or useful (for ed's or for things like self-injury). these are incredibly bold assumptions to make about psychological 'normality' and 'health', and openly pathologise and stigmatise people who do experience such dangerous, harmful desires (and act on them). it's not helpful to sufferers; it's very helpful to the psychiatric establishment.

again, eating disorders are complicated by the fact that an energy deficit itself does have psychological-physiological effects on the bodymind; i don't deny that dialectical nature of the condition. and obviously medical care can be lifesaving when dealing with the physical complications, and everyone ought to have autonomous, freely chosen access to such care. i simply don't think that reducing the entire 'eating disorder' to a disease model (and bps basically also does this, just with the addition of 'factors' from social/psychological sources) is useful or sufficient for understanding or recovering from them.

[pokelolmc]

The Ultimate Enemy is a Disappointment (and How I'd Fix it) (Part 4)

Clockwork is one of the biggest problems with TUE. Change my mind. (Third biggest, specifically, behind Dan and the CAT).

I feel a little guilty, trash-talking fan-favourite Time Dad, but that’s okay—his character concept is really interesting, and I like him in fanon. But canon Clockwork, on the other hand...the writers fucked him up.

Writing a wise, all-knowing (or extensively foreknowing) character is challenging, and they put none of the thought required into it. They try to portray him as sympathetic in the ending--but everything that came before it accidentally implies he's negligent, morally unsympathetic and/or incompetent. And I don’t see ANYONE talking about it.

I still have some say about the Observants at the end, but there's just not as much on them. They appear less, and seem to be deliberately portrayed as incompetent, so their faults are bit more excusable.

(Like section 2, this'll be the criticisms and the fixes will be their own post. I have some very interesting ideas for Clockwork/Observant lore).

(Part 3), Part 4, (Part 4.5)

Part 4--A Wrench in the (Clock)works--The Ultimate Enemy’s failure at writing foreknowing/near-omniscient characters.

Clockwork behaves inconsistently with an all-knowing character. Rather than actively preventing Dan’s existence, he only pushes the events of Dan’s timeline along. And he makes statements/assertions in the episode that are factually wrong.

Given the quote above, and his ability to see the alternate future as he pleased, it’s openly possible that he had access to everything in both timelines, at any time he wanted in the episode, from the time window. So he could know of all the major events of The Ultimate Enemy itself in advance.

While I won’t say this with absolute certainty, I will criticise the writers for establishing this idea in the first place without putting any limitations on his character (to eliminate the possibility of complete foreknowledge). So assume that as just the upper limit. The actuality might be somewhere in the middle.

And this leaves some MASSIVE holes in the writing.

For an apparently wise/all-knowing “Master of Time”, Clockwork makes some terrible decisions.

He wants to demonstrate to the Observants that Danny “won’t grow up evil because he cheated on a test”. So he decides…to give Danny the answers (by orchestrating an “accident”), and see whether he’d cheat or not. This makes no sense and is entirely pointless (if he's as all-knowing as the episode treats him).

He should should already KNOW how his "test" will turn out. If it he didn't need it for himself, but was just trying to prove a point to the Observants, it’s still redundant. There's no reason to tempt Danny to cheat, when the response he already knows is coming won’t prove his point.

If Danny was going to come to the idea of cheating on his own, all Clockwork had to do was sit back and wait. All he ends up doing is make Danny “cheating” happen faster.

He also indirectly leads everyone at the Nasty Burger to their would-be deaths by enabling/facilitating all of the episode's time travel in the first place. The only reason everyone ends up at the Nasty Burger for the explosion in canon is because of the trio and Dan’s time travel (see part 3). Clockwork is the one who obliged the Observants' request to attack Danny. He sent back Skulktech, which gave the trio access to his tower--and to the alternate future, which prompted Dan to go back to the past to railroad his timeline into happening.

Which is something Clockwork should’ve been able to see coming, and did nothing to prevent—not even when he explicitly saw Dan meddling with the past in front of him.

How was the trio able to get behind the back of someone as knowing and powerful as Clockwork (to get the time medallions and hop into the future)? Why did he get so carelessly distracted by Danny? The only explanation is either Clockwork is actually incompetent enough to get outwitted by three (two and a half) human teenagers, or he allowed them to go.

Perhaps everyone still could’ve gone on their own, without future knowledge (not that the episode gives us any options for how that would happen—again, see part 3) but he still made everything worse.

And there’s no reason Clockwork couldn’t check Dan’s timeline ten years back and see the fusion. But he still spends the entire episode acting as if Danny and Dan are the same person. Which is factually incorrect.

We could assume he secretly knows, but just pretends not to--except his actions otherwise are still highly questionable.

He could’ve been cooperative and transparent—just used the ghosts he sent after Danny to get the trio to his tower to talk (foreseeing them hitching a ride with Skulktech), while still complying with the Observants on paper. There, he could’ve explained, “There’s an alternate future where you and the other halfa fuse into a powerful monster; he’s brought the world to ruin and the Observants put a hit on you because overkill…”

(Yeah, remember this? If he's acting, he's sure as hell getting into it for no good reason...)

But instead he tells Danny “I’ve been tasked with eliminating your future, so [Dan] doesn't happen” and acts like a threat to the trio when it would’ve been much more efficient to talk things out!

Claiming that "Danny's future is sealed" because he chose to keep the answers is just blatantly wrong, and he should know better as a guardian of time himself. And cheating on a test is too petty for someone of his scale to consider so morally significant.

2. The episode doesn’t establish/justify why Clockwork didn’t just deal with Dan himself, and spare everyone else the unnecessary strife/trauma. The entire episode can only be possible because of his negligence.

For all the ominous hype about Dan being “inevitable” and “Danny’s going to turn into him”, he really…really isn’t. He’s more so the opposite, given the circumstances are so hyperspecific. The domino effect that leads to his birth is so causally fragile that one small change could completely wipe him off the map.

(like...literally fucking ANYTHING?! It's your call, dude! I'm not the Master of Time!)

Clockwork didn’t even need to be powerful enough to win against Dan one-on-one. He could’ve interfered in Dan’s past by giving information to other characters to change their decisions (steer Lancer and the Fenton’s away from the Nasty Burger via Jazz, keep Danny away from Vlad, etc). If Dan was really that big a threat to both worlds, then he has all the moral justification (for the sake of efficiency) to do so to prevent harm!

And yet, he doesn’t. There's no explained character reason he doesn't interfere--either why he can't or why he thinks he shouldn't. To use a dominantly time-travel series as an example--Doctor Who created lore on time having special "fixed points" that can't be altered without damaging the fabric of time itself. It also had moral/character conflicts exploring the Doctor choosing not to interfere with historical disasters.

But with Clockwork, we don't even get a line. Whether it's a throwaway line on not having the power to interact with regular time directly, or about how he's already tried to prevent Dan's birth and failed (and now thing are in the last stretch). The closest we get are lines such as "things are how they're supposed be" (implying he has a standard of how events should happen), but that's just window-dressing to make him sound mysterious and impressive. There's never an explanation of what does or doesn't count.

If he really couldn’t stop The Ultimate Enemy from happening in the first place, then see point one: Openly allying with/fully informing the trio from the start is more efficient and helpful than letting them treat you like an adversary and stumble in blind. Why did Danny have to go to Vlad to learn about Dan’s origin when Clockwork was right there?!

Tons of people experience trauma (or even die) because of Clockwork’s allowance or inaction. The trio, Jazz, Danny's parents and Mr Lancer (though technically they never remember), future!Valerie and her dad. Even everyone who died because of Dan in the alternate future (because Clockwork could’ve stopped it from ever reaching that point if he tried. If I can come up with ways to prevent Dan's birth, the all-knowing Master of Time can!).

And if he had the power to undo ALL of the damage to the timeline all along (rewinding time to save Danny’s loved ones) …why does anything that happens in this episode matter, at all (outside of the memories of three people)?!

Why couldn’t he have done that when the alternate timeline went awry in the first place?!

Sure, it could be said that Danny learned something from the experience...but I doubt any lesson he could've been "taught" is morally worth the apocalyptic destruction of another timeline and forcing Danny to fight as powerful a threat as Dan unassisted.

Lessons like moral honesty had already been taught in far lower-stakes ways than TUE. Since he didn’t really “become Dan” or do anything actually evil, there was nothing specific he could’ve only learned from Dan’s existence other than "don't create a fusion with Vlad". Dan's wide-scale harm was unnecessary.

3. After sidling all of this bullshit on a fourteen year old kid, Clockwork doesn’t even make up for it properly.

If he wanted to give Danny fair “second chance”, he could’ve sent him back to before any of the time travel happened—the moment in the kitchen before Boxed Lunch attacked. This would’ve undone all the alterations to the timeline and given Danny time to study—especially since he was responsible for the ghost attacks that robbed Danny of his last study days. The boy just had several massive fights and watched his loved ones blow up!

But no. His idea of a “second chance” is dropping Danny off RIGHT before the CAT! To take the blame for Dan opening the answers! All for the purpose of a little triumphant “Danny’s learned his lesson” moment for a half-assed anti-cheating message, when Danny never even cheated! In canon, he couldn't just tell Lancer “a ghost from another timeline opened the answers”—but that wouldn’t have been necessary if Clockwork just sent him further back in time! He basically ripped Danny off.

4. Why does Clockwork even listen to the Observants? What power do they have over him? Why did he oblige their request to go after Danny in the first place?

Clockwork seems to suggest that they see time in a more limited fashion than he does—perhaps with causality in a stricter order, or one-way with less alternate possibilities (based on his parade analogy)…but we see them observing Clockwork at the time window. He essentially shares access to it, so why couldn’t Clockwork just show the Observants Dan’s origin story? That’d raise the same problem with ill-informed decision-making that I already discussed.

And the episode doesn't make it clear what power the Observants have over Clockwork, and why he has any reason to listen to them. If he was right and had the better way of doing things all along, why not just outright refuse the Observants and prove himself right to them with his results? Why entertain their irrational backseating?

[emelinstriker]

About those 3 Anon messages recently...

Yes, there's 3 now. Third on came up while I was finishing typing about the 2nd one.

tl;dr context: peeps defending a fictional 2D lego character, questioning the morality of esau (despite the lack of lore context), as well as for some reason a personal attack on me... also smol chinese jesus??? :'D

DISCLAIMER:

I respect y'all's opinions and headcanons and whatnot. It's all valid. However. I expect respect on my own opinions and headcanons return. That's literally all I'm asking.

That's common sense and I will from this point on just delete anyone else's anon asks if they try to argue with me about my standings on these matters mentioned in here. Or this post in general.

There's literally no point in arguing over words written in a story, or debating whether or not pixels on a screen are hot or not.

With that disclaimer being said...

Case 1:

I'm fully aware of the entire discussion thing of Nezha being eternally 12 and all that, but I'm also fully aware of how LMK Nezha is more of a parody on the original. LMK Nezha is more of an adult 2D character who took the characteristics of the source, but then was turned into an aged-up parody.

It's not weird with the context of how things even came to be in the AU. It does involve a form of "infection" that changes those that are infected. In ESAU it's just slightly different from my original story's OCs to appeal more to the Reader. There are people out there who seek comfort in their own superiority complex too, especially if they can never explore that part of themselves normally. If that doesn't appeal to you, that's fine. But don't assume it's weird just because you don't like it if a fictional master/servant relationship isn't for you.

Now, this ask wasn't really bad or directly disrespectful. That was just basic questioning on the general relationship of the AU as well as the LMK Nezha being 12 discussion. So I went to bed, cuz I didn't wanna respond with my rather aggressive response to the topic. Like, I ranted about it to my Discord server, but it was already around midnight and I knew I'd come off as aggressive, despite the logic and facts, if I just copy n pasted the way I phrased the rant. So I went to bed. But then I woke up to an essay in another ask...

Case 2:

I'm assuming this is the exact same person, based on the timeframe and the writing style..? Maybe even the same person who asked that question about whether I'd make Nezha's relationship towards the Reader romantic or platonic..??

For the sake of this entire thing being unworthy of an unnecessary discussion, as well as the fact that the person sending this isn't worth directly responding to if they hide behind an anon face, knowing they would get flamed, I will solely respond to these for my actual viewers, who do enjoy ESAU.

As in, I noticed how almost every single point is easily arguable. Like, they literally just made it up as if every single relationship between the Reader and their champions is romantic. Which couldn't be further from the truth. This is a point I wanna get more into due to how it covers the Master System more. A random anon sending me questions, or rather statements, like this doesn't deserve to get a detailed response to this directly either. My viewers do deserve more insight though. Be it to avoid more people thinking this is automatically grooming, or just to give interested people more lore dump.

To keep it short: Everyone who wants to be a Reader, is a Reader. I myself am a Reader of fiction, which is why I use my persona to fill in the Reader's space in any drawing I do for ESAU. Which is also why Macaque referred to their Master currently being female in that one drawing- Because in that moment, in my drawings, I'm technically seen as their Master.

So when you see the champions swap between their Master using non-binary or female pronouns, this is why. If you see me draw them referring to their Master as a "she", they're referring to basically their current Master in that exact moment. However, literally anyone else can also be placed in that spot.

Whenever I refer to a Reader's reincarnation, I usually mean either "the same person, but another life" OR "different people of the same/a different life". As in, the Reader can imagine themselves having had multiple past lives, or their "past life" is actually another Reader. We're all the Reader. That's why I kept saying the Master System is rather philosophical.

The Reader can imagine themselves if they met their champions as a child or as an adult. However, nothing in ESAU is forced to be romantic or sexual. If you were born as a prince/princess/royalty, that doesn't mean your servants are immediately destined to be romantic or sexual with you, right? That entire portion is up to the Reader to decide and imagine. I do not control what another person thinks of and imagines. If they chose to pick a darker path, the fuck do you want me to do about that? Unless it ends up hurting anyone, or they actively push the topic onto others, I see no issue with however a Reader wants to think up what happens in their life with their servants. All I do is create material for others to play with.

Except for the First Master, any other Reader can be considered either the same person or various people. That's up to the person behind the screen, whether they feel more comforted with one idea or another.

On the Nezha being 12 topic... Do people know what a parody is, I-

LMK Nezha looks more like THIS-

Not as young as THIS-

And he was never said to be 12 years old in LMK. Nor does he look 12, act 12, speak 12, sound 12... LMK needs to be seen and accepted as more like a parody AU of the original story, if that wasn't obvious enough. I find it funny how they brought up my own age though-

Cuz yeah, I'm 21, almost 22, and I do understand the difference between reality's religions, fictional 2D pixels, and the difference between the source and a parody. Wow. Shocker. I know.

Or as I said it in tags earlier today-

Also I'd just like to add… If we go by the theory of specifically LMK Nezha still being 12, despite literally thousands of years having passed, his body being depicted as a fully grown adult in basically every single goddamn aspect of his character within the show… Literally all he got is his paperwork saying he's 12. Like- LMK Nezha would literally just be one of those people that were born on February 29th. Just him not getting any birthdays. Do you assume after literal thousands of years, with his body and mind being mature, and only his paperwork saying he's 12, this dude wouldn't be tryna explore more of himself and his interests, wh-

Like- LMK Nezha isn't the original source Nezha. Simple as that. Just accept it's a parody and be done with it. If you don't agree with it, that's your opinion and I respect that. But don't you dare fucking push that opinion on others who do actually accept the show as a parody and wanna live out their fantasies in said parody.

Your opinion does not mean it's the opinion of others.

Like, the entire age thing in LMK is such a headcanon thing to the point where no one seems to have a solid age, besides maybe MK, who I've seen people calculate his age for due to his driving license and all that. LMK Nezha is confirmed to be depicted as an adult within the show, which is the headcanon I'm going with, regardless of whatever bullshittery people are trying to argue with.

In conclusion: Nezha may be eternally 12 in a story. But that story is NOT Lego Monkie Kid.

On a side note, something I found ironic and funny, is if an aged up character isn't allowed to be sexualized, then I guess if someone ages a character down, suddenly that original source of the character is no longer allowed to be sexualized either, just because that character suddenly has a younger version of themselves. It's not even the younger version that's being sexualized. That literally is the entire logic of this debate on not wanting a fictional character to have an aged up version of themselves.

Good job, nobody wins. I guess nothing can be sexualized at that point- But then again, Rule 34 wouldn't exist then.

Okay, but now this, THIS is where I got REALLY annoyed, cuz NOW we're getting into more personal territory of nitpicking at ESAU. And those who know me are aware of how I go Asian mom mode when my creations, or younger friends and mutuals, are being wrongfully disrespected.

In general, their entire point is a snowflake-behavior nitpick. Branding is also seen as a way to claim ownership over something. The torture part is basically just the pain of it. I could've also just have the champions have one of those toy stamps for lil children be slapped onto them if you really wanna snowflake it all for tHe PrEcIoUs cHilDrEn...

C'mon. I grew up with FNAF and Creepypastas. Which tend to be usually two of the first fandoms I see children get interested in and hyperfixated on. Mentions of brandmarks that have fully healed ain't nothin' at all.

Like, I literally met a boy who was 8ish years old, who was so happy and hyped about FNAF that he asked me to draw Freddy and Bonnie.

Creepypastas also might make one edgy for a while, but they do grow A LOT from it once they leave that phase. So far, everyone I've ever talked to about Creepypastas in the past became such a good person. Because they look back, and recognize morals so much better. They have seen what bad things can happen and we all know where to draw the line between what's fine, and what's not. Nitpicking on LMK Nezha and ESAU doesn't mean anything since it's just that, nitpicking. I know where to draw the line, but this line these people set is a line no one but themselves can imagine.

Show children bits of reality's darker side and they will know how to deal with the knowledge much better and faster as they grow. That wasn't even just about branding, but I'm tired of people saying how we need to keep children safe. Well yeah, keep them safe physically, but they will never fucking grow and become more independent unless you fucking let them think and process the good AND the bad for themselves.

Also on the topic of adding content warnings- Like, the fuck do you want me to even add? Those asks other people sent of the Reader being basically raised by their servants need no warnings, X Readers in general need no warnings, the brandmarks need no warnings cuz they're just there as aesthetic symbols for anyone not invested in the lore, LMK Nezha needs no content warnings-

Literally the only content warning I'd ever need to add is something like gore, which I do admit I didn't add on the ESAU!Nezha X Reader one.

And I'd just like to add a little something that made me raise an eyebrow: They complained about me going against "Wukong's celibacy vows" when they literally admitted to actively looking through the LMK X Reader tag. While that doesn't necessarily mean they would marry or bang Wukong, that means they're at least curious or interested in what a relationship with any of those characters would be like. Which by all means, would not be possible without it being fiction/fanfiction, and without them having some curiosity or interest in the 2D show of LMK.

Like you're literally telling me I'm practically hurting a fictional character's feelings on the matter, but then turn around and try to get with another character.

Fanfiction and AU's are a thing, man. It's all opinions, headcanons, and literally made up shenanigans. And there's nothing wrong with it when it differs from one person to another.

But dumping empty accusations onto me, someone who thinks more logically than emotionally, literally doesn't help your case. Like, you're debating whether or not this 2D character would actually give a shit if someone would wanna bang them cuz they look hot to the other person.

Case 3:

This one just got dropped into my inbox as I finished typing out the last paragraph and just- This is literally just a unnecessary and only somewhat personal hatred thing at this point- But I'm wheezing at the idea of a smol Chinese Jesus-

Bro, as someone who was forced to be Christian on paper, but never gave a shit about it, because Religion doesn't prove anything or form you, I really don't care. And even if that were the case, I wouldn't complain. It's all fiction dammit. You're again, defending pixels on a screen. Besides that, that wouldn't even be the original source character, again. Also in general, honestly, I see any religious story as fiction anyway. Cuz that literally is what a religion is- You put a belief onto someone over a being/a story-

If you're religious, I respect that. But so do you have to respect that I'm not exactly religious myself.

Case 3 was probably the most directly aggressive one of the 3, but also the most unmeaningful one and so unnecessary one... as if that would be the one to prove a point.

Anyway, rant over, I'm done with this.

If I see any other personal hate on me for not sharing the same fucking opinion on such a niche debate, I'll just ignore and delete it all. This is such a pointless topic.

ESAU is supposed to be a comfort zone for those who actually do feel connected to it. If you don't, that's fine, I fully respect it. If people believe Nezha is 12, I respect that. But don't push that onto those who literally are just here to have a nice time away from shit like this. If you wanna "keep the children safe", fucking keep them away from this sort of nowhere-leading discussion topic.

Literally look at Genshin's Twitter Community, this just feels like the exact same type of unnecessary drama I see there.

And no I will not tag these 3 anons. If they respect me enough, they will either just keep quiet or block me and move on. I don't mind. But I refuse to let this bullshit be a whole ass discussion when I'm just trying to have a good time connecting to my viewers after a long day at work. If they look for a fight for some reason, I won't give them one. They can pick someone else for this bullshit, it's not worth my time as it's all OPINION AND HEADCANON-BASED.

And such debates don't end in peace. So I'd rather be the bigger, more mature person and just say "This is the line. Discussion over. We're done here".

Have a nice day, anyone who actually is nice and respectful towards others and their own takes/opinions on things! Weekend's here now tho so y'all ESAU lovers might see some wholesome lil doodles! :D

[drdemonprince]

I have a question regarding your “all drug use is the same” post: obviously I agree that there’s no moral superiority to using prescription drugs over “illegal” drugs, but is your position that there is no practical health difference between using a metered and monitored amount of a regulated medication and using a recreational amount of an unregulated substance? It just seems to me that people who are dependent on amphetamines or opioids in order to be able to function should be encouraged to seek out medical diagnoses that would enable them to access drugs from more reliable suppliers and with the support of a physician who can monitor for negative side effects, rather than being told “it makes no difference at all where and how you get and use your drugs”

Both prescription and non-prescription drug use can be extremely dangerous (I’ve nearly died due to incorrect dosing by physicians on four separate occasions, and I have lost far too many friends to overdose) and it’s really important for people to be as careful as they can be!!! The reason that’s “nearly died” rather than “did die” is only because I was being monitored closely enough that when my organs started to shut down, a doctor was paying attention and could adjust my medication appropriately, and I know I’m not the only person in that position.

My position is and always has been for all drugs to be available under an informed consent model. The patient determines what they need with the aid of a doctor, but they are the authority on their own experience. It's guided, liberatory decision making with clarity on what they are taking and what it will do. This is all outlined in my essay from a few months ago:

which you can read here:

Saying there's no moral difference between vyvanse and heroin is not at all a prescriptive statement about how people should access drugs, and i dont know why people are assuming that it is. This always happens when I say a thing is morally neutral. People always try to read a moral recommendation into it. Really shows how much our discourse is poisoned by puritanism and a lack of trust in individual autonomy i think. Saying something isnt evil is enough for people to claim youre saying people should do it. bizarre to me.

also, please rethink the assumption that because a drug was given by a doctor it is safe and was prescribed with the patient's best interests in mind. Access medication through the healthcare system as it currently stands isn't safe either. The opioid epidemic and the stories of thousands of psychiatric survivors is a testament to that.

[woomycritiques543]

As a HB/HH liker, I sincerly apologize on behalf of most of the fandom, As someone who actually likes those shows, i'll admit that they do have major flaws (Seeing Stars was meh for me), but seeing how fans, Especially big fans/artists (Like DaniDraws, Teathekook, Elcee, etc) react to any sort of criticism on twitter, is rather embarrasing to say the least.

(You can imagine the releif when I read the rest of this. lol!)

Thank you, its nice to see someone from the main tags being reasonable for once. Very rare when I end up seeing that.

Its not even just the big artists, its people from Spindlehorse too that act childishly about it. Getting suprised when anyone doesnt like an episode and pitching fits about criticism, acting immature in general.

Speaking about critique in such a condecending way that can only be concluded as "shaming" rather than just dissapointment. Not even admitting to the episode had flaws, but shaming those who critiqued it. Vivziepop being so petty, that she liked this specific post as a way to pretend as if the critiques were "wrong." (putting "ruins the show" in quotations, the way its being said, the emoji, etc.) These being the comments after. With the average "wait for another episode!" excuse when theres now been enough episodes to know most of the quality of how the show will be going forward. This was also written before S2 Episode two, another awful episode, which made this all the more hilarious to read from these people. Also saying "this is just temporary!" or that "im just watching them to prove to the haters that they're "wrong" and they gotta see what happens before they judge them!" as if the last episode didnt fuck up the lore of the past ones (spoiler alert: it did.) which would automatically effect other episodes by default. There also being mostly character decisions that would effect the rest of the show based on how the show is sugarcoating their actions. Not letting them actually develop as a result.

Hince the "ruined" statement the fandom has been saying.

Since- the timeline was ruined, the potiential in certain characters was ruined by the backpeddling and sugarcoating. We dont need to watch other episodes to know this as "ruined". They're that bad.

These episodes are allowed to be judged as themselves Callis (I know there are people from your staff reading this.) we dont need to know "everything" about the show and whats going to happen to stand our ground about how we feel about it. Were not doing this to "assume" about whats going to happen. The show is already bad, this has been proven to us hundreds of times already. No new episode is going to "fix" how much damage thats been done already unless they rewrite the story altogether. The merch, the sugarcoating, and all.

Callis saying that the critiques were "mean" just because they arent the ones who constantly kiss the feet of their favorite ocs and mention that-gasp??? Their "bad people" demon characters are- NOT GOOD PEOPLE?! and- GASP! Should legit be held accountable for their actions?! WOW! Its almost like this isnt the "secretly wholesome" adult cartoon that they wanted it to be but was executed as showing their characters as awful because- GASP! The writers also just happened to not be good people with questionable morals! /j

A group of bad people trying to dictate what's "moral" or not? Who would have guessed that this would eventually lead to the show becoming messed up as all fuck- not even in a good way, but showing messages from the writers terrible enough to make even a 90's series blush.

Its almost like all of this whining about people who critique in the fandom is just an attempt to gaslight people into seeing the critiques as "hot takes" and not anything of actual value. When people are upset for actual reasons. No "youre allowed to critique" gaslighting is going to make us hold back our words. Lmao!

Calis also mentioning a nonsensical critique about Lucifer's new design but not even mentioning what people were actually upset about. Its bias such as this that is just that- "Embarassing."

These people react to the critique like teenagers who just got a f on a test for the first time. Immature, making excuses, and just downright being very condesending, gaslighting, and non-addressing.

So your ask was entirely understandable anon. Thank you for apologizing. It wont do much for how these people effect us, but I do appreciate the empathy. Thank you.

[blorbosexterminator]

"There are some things Andrés is worse about than Martin and vice versa" - i'm curious what things do you mean specifically? both of them are very bad morally but what are the points where one is slightly more decent than the other?

That's a statement definitely open to interpretation, but if we look at canon (in my view at least), we have two clear examples of something Andrés did and Martín didn't (with no reason to assume from the audience that he would do in any scenario and vice versa.

With Andrés, I'm obviously talking about the Thing with Ariadna. It's a very wobbly handled storyline with a lot of revisionism and retcon in the literal season it happened lmfao, but it's Rape, loud and clear. I personally don't adhere to the Andrés didn't know what he was doing line of thought. Maybe he did grow too delusional with it to think him and the hostage fell in love along the way, but the first time it happened on screen, that was 100% rape by a man who knew he was raping. I don't particularly think it was a very out of character move. He very much wanted to have one last true love, but he also wanted to establish power and dominance and some twisted sense of "kinghood' in the mint once he went in, and taking Ariadnna and making her some sort of concubine and making her and the other women terrified for their lives unless they offer him something was absolutely a part of that.

Now that's a moral taboo I have no reason to believe Martín would be willing to cross. On the other hand, Martín did betray the entire banda and unleashed a professional assassin on them, endangering literally all of their lives and resulting in the death of one (and near deaths of others, Helsinki for example nearly died at Gandia's hands), he exposed Rio's weakness and orchestrated the perfect way for Gandia to attack.

Which is something I don't think Andrés would be willing to do. In canon, we actually have enough reasons to believe the contrary. Whatever Andrés' faults, he was, in his own twisted way, a team player. His loyality to the team, his complete unwillingness to even seem like a person who would sell his team out, etc, are significant traits of his. I think he would think it way too below him to betray his team and help the enemy to that extent and in that way.

I think their moral compasses stand more or less on the same level. They are both obviously willing to go very far and twist their morals to get what they want. And maybe those two things had more to do with what they wanted than what they're willing to do. Andrés' desperation for love and for the image of ancient power (rather than actual power) bs Martín's need to be in total control no matter the consequences and no matter who is sacrificed.

Those are the two events where each was more decent than the other (and it's funny that they are the two events Pina did everything in his power to retcon and pass over like nothing happened. Pina's desire to have characters do horrible things but at the end of the day still be palatable by audiences and perceived as "more good than bad" is just funny to me. )

[vegannerdgirl]

As a conservationist, I'd like to hear your opinion on this as I'm sure you've heard it as well. I went down a rabbit hole on here and apparently it is a very wildly accepted thing by so called "animal welfare lovers" and such, that trophy hunting is not only good but also amazing for saving animals. It is beyond ridiculous and I was shocked to even see videos on YouTube saying how trophy hunting helps animal conservation, implying the money paid by the hunters to hunt, and the money they earn from selling it, goes directly into funding conservation for the same animals. I find it absolutely insane but these people are impossible to reason with. I'd just like to have this ridiculous idea shut down.

That is a very, very old rationale trotted out by people who want to have a moral reason for sport killing. It is also in line with the mentality of "if I exploit this animal, and they get something in return, it is a symbiotic relationship."

Stating that giving money in exchange for killing animals is a "fair trade" is reductive in many ways. It assumes that one, money alone can save a species. There are many reasons why a species may be going extinct, and something such as human encroachment by land development cannot be solved with money if the land is being lived on by people, isn't for sale, is no longer habitable, etc.

And then there are some species that need habitat and an end to hunting. There are some species where so few animals still exist that killing even one can cause such a detriment to the species, that no amount of money can make up for the genetic loss.

In instances of exchanging money for sport killing where there is no concern for extinction and money does go a long way towards conservation, that’s when you see animal welfarists on board with it. Animal liberationists would not, because our concern is with individual animals, not just the species level.

I find the “kill for conversation” approach to be parallel to ecofascist arguments. It’s the individual vs. the group argument, and when this is applied to human beings, we call it ecofascism. “There are too many people and not enough resources, therefore we should regulate the population.” Some people still do genuinely feel that way, but most people can understand the ethical implications of such a statement.

With the “kill for conservation” approach, it’s much the same way. “There aren’t enough resources to save this species, therefore we should take something from them in exchange for the help we do give.” The problem with this argument, just like the ecofascism argument, is that it causes harm (and in this case, suffering and death) to individuals, all of the sake of the “greater good.”

That is the difference between the animal welfare vs. the animal liberationist approach. Animal welfarists care about species, not the suffering of individuals (as long as something is gained in the process). Animal liberationists care about suffering and the autonomy of individuals to live as free as they can in an ever-encroaching world. By extension, caring for individuals tends to also aid in the conservation of a species. If you want individuals to flourish and be free of exploitation, it makes sense that you would support policies and changes that would help the species as a whole. It’s a grassroots approach, rather than a top-down one.

(I’m explaining it in a simplified way because there are instances where “culling” a population can keep it healthy, but that has historically been a role filled by natural predators, and human beings taking on that role has become so twisted and destructive that I do not consider it a valid approach in the current world we live in.)

At the end of the day, when an organization is allowing the killing and exploitation of individuals, they will look at those animals and that species as a means to an end, rather than being the ends themselves. When you treat animals as numbers with a cash value, that is how you will come to perceive them, no matter how good your intentions at the start. To truly wish to conserve species and the environments in which they live, you have to do so with genuine intent and integrity. You must see their value as intrinsic, separate from any economy or market.

Otherwise, you become another animal exploitation business with an NGO label.

[delulu-with-wandanat]

When I see people from all sorts of backgrounds: incels, feminists,... yell from the top of their lungs about how Natasha Romanoff is sexualized & an eye candy. I assume that must be a very prominent part of her characterisation but then when I revisit her whole screentime, I can only think of : the suit not it's tightness all superhero suits are tight but the below average lower zip, don't come at me but didn't Wanda's suits in EG, IW,CW & lowkey AOU kinda accentuate her chest not to mention every Spiderman's suit accentuating his dick, I didn't see anyone reducing their characterisation to how they were physically represented. There are also 2 ass shots in IR2 &CA:TWS done for "surprise" effet which shares with her Steve in A1 & EG where there's a running joke about his ass and everyone got over those minutes where his ass was focused. There's that photo (in lingerie) that appeared on Tony's ipad? for like 0.1second but isn't that reasonable considering she is an undercover spy on a honeypot mission? I might also add that backseat car scene in IR2 is kinda understandable I mean it's just her changing her clothes and we can only get glimpse of Scarlett's bra and leg for fucks sake why are people acting like we got full minutes of Scarlett's naked body for no fucking reason? We are talking about a character with very loose (not in that slut shaming way but in morally gray/complex way)views on everything including where/how to change, what to do in her missions,... Her undercover time in IR2 is literally the embodiment of that statement "Natasha is comfortable with everything" that is said by Nick to Steve. This honestly an aspect of hers people overlook &is remembered only to describe her as the team's slut, a pass around who has no values. There's also that 1 scene in AOU where Bruce falls from what I don't remember" on her boobs I get it it was unnecessary but if people just for a second ignored their hatred for brucenat this scene can be overlooked if it was done in a way that makes it spontaneous and reasons why exactly Bruce would fall on nat instead of elsewhere, plus it's just 1 scene. It's sad that even her fans start by "even though she's so sexualized, I like her". I just want to know where is this grand sexualization to a point it's constitute part of the character. I know she was sexualized in a way, that fucking lower zip always drove me insane like ZIP IT UP WOMAN but she got a total of 3:45 min screentime, it's stupid or maybe very telling of the people's part if her unzipped suit is the most memorable of those nearly 4 hours. I honestly think it's because Scarlett is a hot woman with ample chest & those misogynist dudebro nerds only cared for her body & treated as an eye candy and refused to acknowledge her effectiveness then others just believed in the loud notices, it's like circular victim blaming.

I get ur point, but i think its good that ppl point this out so studios will stop with the unnecessary shots on female characters. And maybe actually put more efforts on building their story and their arc.

A character can be sexy and loose in a non sexualized way. They can be sexy spy without having to appeal to men or to anyone. I don’t think ppl meant to reduce her character to how she was represented visually, rather theyre pointing it out.

Because if we don’t, she’ll just stay a side character that they use to uplift other characters. I mean look where we are now? All the og avengers had their back stories all fleshed out, they showed it on screen and we get an even deeper understanding of their character.

Albeit Natasha is not a side character, but how much do we actually know about her? How long did it take til she had her own solo movie? No disrespect to Captain Marvel, but she was the first female avengers to be introduced in the mcu. Why did it took her death to get her a movie? how much did we get to enjoy her story on screen? They kept talking about the infamous Budapest story, yeah Nat told us the story, but are u really fucking staisfied with that??

You see where I’m getting at?

Natasha is such an amazing character with an amazing story and complex personality, yet we barely get to see it. Instead of exploring her character they often use her to push another character’s arc. It’s stupid, it’s lazy, and honestly waste of potential.

I love ur take on that car scene where she changed her clothes. But in my opinion that scene could’ve been done in a different way, yet still showed her loose personality. You can tell the studio meant for that scene to appeal to men. Compare that scene, with her changing clothes in BW movie. See the difference? Same type of scene, shot in a different way, with a different mindset.

As much as i would love to brush off those scenes as part of her character, if we keep letting these studios go like that. They’re just gonna keep using great female characters as a tool to push the arc of male characters while disregarding her own story.

[etotheipjsense]

Like every single day i feel awful and like I’m not doing enough and im not and ik that and I try my best but still and then like the fact you say:

“Im only gonna boycott the things on tje bds list and no ethical consumption under capitalism”

And like yeah I whole heartedly agree with that, however I do feel a little uncomfortable giving my money to people who use that money to do apartheid and kill actual real children with fucking names

“If you need to work for someone on bds to live then that’s fine”

Hmm sure im middle class i am exceedingly privileged so i cant judge necessarily but again do you not feel like shit if youre labour funds apartheid

“Donating money does more than protesting”

Like tf no this is so wrong. First of all youve assumed either you donate money OR attend protests like no where did that come from you can do both assuming the statement is completely correct which I disagree with youre imposing a false binary for no fucking reason. Second I think protesting does more, no israeli atheltes competed in the athletics championships because of protests, no amount of money could do that. Its so hard to get any aid into palestine because the israeli state controls so much and blocks access to everything and kills people trying to receive aid like the money you donate may keep a family of palestinians alive for a few days longer but what they really need is like stuff from governments and intervention and an actual change and the dissolution of the israeli state rather than £5 or however much you can afford, im sorry but theres no way protests dont make more of a difference like the glasgow council is hopefully going to pass a motion to cut any ties with israel and arms companies which no amoujt of money will achieve

Also how much do you fucking donate like its your moral obligation to attend every protest you can every vigil every event and at every opportunity do everything you can and like it costs you less than donating does

And then to say if you are in glasgow on a day of a national demo you would rather go to a st patricks day even than protest a genocide is just jesus fuck

If you dont do Bds dont do bDs because youre too scared to email people dont protest and dont even really spread any awareness to my knowledge like what do you do, sure if you’re unavailable or unwell or unsafe then thats fine go off your health is important but if you at every opportunity do nothing you arent pro palestine youre pro israel

[eldritch-bf]

Common Logical Fallacies w/ Examples

I ripped these straight from Purdue Owl as well as Grammarly but you can also look at Wikipedia which has many many more. Cause honestly I think we all, myself included, need a refresher on these and we should maybe just stop arguing with people who use fallacious logic and just point out the logical fallacy and tell them to come back when they have a real argument.

It is important to note that the premise or statement can be true but it’s still a fallacious argument if the reasoning used to come to that conclusion is a logical fallacy. “The world isn’t flat because I saw it was round in a dream.” Obviously the world isn’t flat but the reasoning used to support that statement is fallacious, so it is a fallacious argument.

Anecdotal Evidence: The argument draws a conclusion from cases specifically chosen to support the conclusion.

Example: Abortion is morally wrong. In one case a woman had an abortion merely so her pregnancy would not interfere with a trip to Europe that she and her husband were planning.

(Anecdotal evidence is from Palomar.edu since I consider it super important and neither list included it.)

Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either.

Example: If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts.

Example: Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.

In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course on only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one but several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.'

Example: I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.

In this example, the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth.

Example: The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army.

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim.

Example: Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it.

Example: George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or (false dilemma): This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices.

Example: We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

In this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car-sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments.

Example: Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.

In this example, the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal: This is an appeal that presents what most people, or a group of people think, in order to persuade one to think the same way. Getting on the bandwagon is one such instance of an ad populum appeal.

Example: If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle they want.

In this example, the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.

Example: The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families?

In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

Example: People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.

In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.

Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral.

Example: That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.

In this example, the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions of a person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and inaccurate.

More I ripped from Grammarly.

Appeal to ignorance: An appeal to ignorance is a claim that something must be true because it hasn’t been proven false. It can also be a claim that something must be false because it hasn’t been proven true. This is also known as the burden of proof fallacy.

Example: There must be fairies living in our attic because nobody’s ever proven that there aren’t fairies living in our attic.

Sunk cost fallacy: With the sunk cost fallacy, the arguer justifies their decision to continue a specific course of action by the amount of time or money they’ve already spent on it.

Example: I’m not enjoying this book, but I bought it, so I have to finish reading it.

Appeal to pity: An appeal to pity attempts to sway a reader’s or listener’s opinion by provoking them emotionally.

Example: I know I should have been on time for the interview, but I woke up late and felt really bad about it, then the stress of being late made it hard to concentrate on driving here.

Causal fallacy: A causal fallacy is one that implies a relationship between two things where one can’t actually be proven.

Example: When ice cream sales are up, so are shark attacks. Therefore, buying ice cream increases your risk of being bitten by a shark.

Appeal to hypocrisy: An appeal to hypocrisy, also known as a tu quoque fallacy, is a rebuttal that responds to one claim with reactive criticism rather than with a response to the claim itself.

Example: “You don’t have enough experience to be the new leader.” “Neither do you!”

(This last one is from Scribbr.)

Non-Sequitur: A step missing from a line of reasoning and the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Example: Giving up nuclear weapons weakened the United States’ military. Giving up nuclear weapons also weakened China. For this reason, it is wrong to try to outlaw firearms in the United States today.

[paragonrobits]

Movie Review - The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas

(Presented by the statement "it's not a porno I promise")

The specific bit about this movie that had me initially interested in it as part of a recurring set of movie challenges between me and a friend, who watch movies independently and then confer on our respective thoughts on the experience, was that it starred Dolly Parton, Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise. (I think it is fair to say, having watched the movie, in THAT order of importance.) I was vaguely aware of this movie but in retrospect it’s hard to say in what capacity. Suffice to say I knew of its existence in a back-of-the-mind way, but now I can’t recall having heard of it, just that I knew OF it and that for some reason I regarded it as a classic. That was at least correct in some ways; this movie was released to notable commercial success and was the most successful musical film for about 24 years. But more notably, I was interested for the three aforementioned stars: Dolly Parton, Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise.

These are significant names if you, like me, had your formative years throughout the 1990s; two of them were household names, Parton’s more so (or perhaps that’s just my recollection of things), but Reynolds still had enough importance to be playing himself in Saints Row the Third, where I apparently knew of his existence enough to be startled when he popped up; a casual glance at his write up on the TV Tropes wiki suggests that he’s done this in the past, too, playing a comedic depiction of himself.

Parton comes to mind first; while Sheriff Ed (portrayed by Reynolds) arguably drives the plot in a more direct way as he tends to be the one setting off conflicts and consequences for better or worse, Miss Mona (played by Dolly Parton) seems to be the true protagonist of this story so to speak; at the very least she’s the heart of it, a benevolent and charming madame running the titular brothel. She’s a lot of fun on screen, and it also gives the impression of being completely genuine rather than some kind of facade, which also sets up the vibe of the brothel being a place of business chiefly, and the antagonist Melvin Thorpe (portrayed by Dom Deluise) as stirring up trouble in a moral panic that is, sadly, true enough to our times. (He gives the impression of having no personal stake in this, being a moral crusader who is breaking up a long time unspoken agreement not to make an issue of something harmless, purely for the attention and sake of his career. This, along with the moral panic itself, is a curiously timeless feeling; I actually kept forgetting about the time this movie was set and kept assuming it was much earlier, until the presence of more modern technology made me realize this was NOT set in the early 50s like I assumed for some reason.)

Dolly Parton in general was frequently the butt of jokes in the 90s, and it feels relevant to remark that most of them were HER jokes, specifically; people might have made cracks about her being top heavy or lines like ‘it costs a LOT of money to look THIS cheap’ but you had better believe than anyone doing it to insult her or mock her would be beat to the punch first by Parton making those jokes, and she does a fair bit of it poking fun at herself here, and in a way that feels both like her just doing her thing as well as something genuinely in-character. At the same time, Miss Mona’s character is established pretty early on as both the proprietor of the Chicken Ranch and running it as a business where the women working there are cared for and kept to strict standards, as well as having a good-natured demeanor that makes her come off as a town authority that holds a LOT of influence she’s to genteel to directly acknowledge.

This in turn lends itself to a bit of historical digression; to my knowledge, these brothel madames were instrumental in the early towns of the frontier as genuine authorities, getting more and more power and becoming integral to early feminist movements in the counter, particularly on the West coast. Deliberately or not (and this may in turn be a reflection of this movie and its theater inspiration being based on real events to some degree), this is the same vibe Miss Mona has; much like her historical predecessors, she’s established very quickly as a philanthropist who gives a lot of money to important charitable concerns.

There’s also a vibe that even if the town doesn’t acknowledge it, or later want to admit it, but her funneling the money sent her way by the Chicken Ranch’s services and then back into town is likely economically important. The town likely suffers seriously after it is ultimately shut down, and there is certainly room to contemplate about shooting yourself in the foot because of a moralizing panic. ‘Just think of the children’ rhetoric never really changes, especially when its used as a sledgehammer into your own face, so to speak, used by people who really don’t care about you or your concerns and just want to garner a bit of fame in the moment.

Miss Mona’s characterization is also strikingly similar to Parton’s own well-known character; much like Miss Mona, Parton is well known for her philanthropy and charity work (specifically that she’s made public record; apparently she does a LOT of it on the down low; the extent of her charity work is somewhat beyond the intent of this review but suffice to say, she does good and she does a LOT of it), and its one of those happy accidents of actors being INCREDIBLY well suited to playing a particular character. It’s notable to me, too, since like I mentioned, she was a self-proclaimed camp icon in the 90s but I don’t recall her charitable work being as well known, and to me this movie seems to make it a bit of a cornerstone of her character. There’s a specific trope known as the establishing character moment, when the first significant scene we see of a character sets the stage for everyone we need to know about them right away; after the campy intro and musical number, the first thing we see her doing is donating a great deal of money to the town, with the implication that she regularly does this and is at least partially a big part of the town’s success.

This in turn leads us to Reynolds and his character of Sheriff Ed, who is friendly with Miss Mona after a long series of on-again off-again flings, and once Thorpe turns his muckracking ways towards the Chicken Ranch, her chiefest ally. As mentioned earlier, while I can’t honestly say he’s the main protagonist (at least to me), he DOES drive the plot. The vast majority of the story’s events are driven by his choices, his actions, and people reacting to him. Perhaps there’s something to be said here for them as deuteragonists; Miss Mona as the chief actor, and Ed as the one who tries to handle things. In this movie, while one can say he does things for better or worse, he gives the impression of a man struggling to adapt to the times and unaware OF those times changing, and his outlook and preferences in action being unsuitable without a little bit of forethought.

More often than not, Ed’s apparent temper, tendency to bluster and intimidate threats into backing down backfires HORRIBLY; a chief example is during Thorpe’s big number in the town proper as he prepares to investigate the Ranch directly, Ed attacks him while being filmed, unaware that the cameras were running; the intent apparently being to scare off Thorpe, and Ed being completely unaware of being filmed at the time. Given the ultimate closure of the Ranch after a hundred years of operation and Miss Mona going her separate ways from Sheriff Ed at the end (at least, in the theater’s more original bittersweet ending, which I will touch upon later), I keep thinking of a theme of ‘the world moves on’ in this movie. The years go by, and the normal we know keeps slipping away or changing bit by bit, and it's too late once it's moved too much to do anything about it as it affects us negatively. The world moves on, and leaves them behind, and all because a muckraker wanted attention for his career.

Ed can’t move with those times until it's too late. And truth be told I did have a BIT of a difficult time getting to read Ed; with his tendency to intimidate others, outright attacking someone to make a point (Even if, in context, we are likely intended to cheer for him in the moment and it's certainly understandable), he does uncomfortably feel like the authoritarian copaganda of works that spread the idea that ‘if only cops didn’t have REGULATIONS and RULES and could do whatever they wanted, they could get so much more done’. I think this might be the result of recent years of abuses of power coming into the open and more awareness on those topics, and we are looking at this with the benefit of hindsight. I don’t think Ed is INTENDED to come off as an authoritarian bully, and he ultimately doesn’t feel like one to me. I think a lot of it is the result that in other circumstances he’s rather genteel and polite regardless of who he’s talking to. A lot of his more violent behavior comes off as desperation or panic. His ‘all bark no bite’ vibe goes a long way towards keeping him out of the copaganda list, at least for me personally. This man ain’t no Dirty Harry! (Mind you, I AM from Arizona so awareness of this sort of thing is pretty relevant given some of the politics here. Go look up stuff with the Sheriff of Maricopa, you’ll find some unpleasant details, yeah?)

As a minor digression, though I didn’t realize it at first due to his voice being much more known to me than the actor behind it, Reynolds had been involved heavily as the main character Charlie in All Dogs Go To Heaven; I would go so far as to say that this was sort of his archetypal character to me. It’s actually pretty interesting how much Don Bluth works were instrumental both in my formative appreciation for animation as well as establishing basic responses towards several of the actors in this work. It’s hard for me to say now if Reynold’s role as a charming con man is contrary to his usual roles, but I’m tempted to say so; he certainly gives the impression of having been an actor who made his fame portraying tough no-nonsense men of action.

And speaking of Don Bluth, this brings us to the last bit of the ensemble; Dom Deluise. He is most keenly familiar to me as Tiger from the Fieval movies, though as some of the movie challenges have gone towards the 80s (animated and live-action alike) he pops up a LOT, and in truth it was actually hard for me to place him specifically, but he has a distinctive lilt to his voice that is similar to Tiger (or perhaps Barf in Spaceballs), and I expect he used a variant of his normal speaking voice for those more comedic roles. If Burt Reynolds was a bit of an unknown quantity if expected to be a Polite Man of Action, and Dolly Parton more or less personified herself here, then Dom Deluise is genuinely startling to me. That voice is VERY distinctive as a comedic and heartfelt character that is more often than not my favorite part of the movie or at least one of the nicest bits about it, so you can just imagine my surprise when I realized HE was the antagonist of this movie! I would actually say that it goes a long way to establishing this movie’s particular tone, as its antagonist is a sleazy muckraker that stirs up trouble and sets off shifts in public perception with catchy song and dance numbers, stirring up moralistic outcries with song and dances after straight up lying to Ed’s face about it! He has an energetic energy that is strangely fun AND punchable at the exact same time, and its tremendously surreal to me given my expectations from his characters. It sets off all sorts of jangling ‘WTF’ bells in my head. Such goes against the laws of Nature! Dom Deluise as a VILLAIN? It’s just plain weird and it works very well in this movie’s favor, and really shows off his acting chops beyond what I was used to with him. Given that I initially assumed the deputy (a comedic character who appears throughout and works well as a foil to Sheriff Ed) was Dom Deluise; I was quite wrong about that.

Deluise’s Melvin Thorpe is a fun and sleazy villain, and interestingly enough his actual impact lessens as the movie goes on, to the point that he shows up less and less. There’s probably a point to be made there; those who shape opinion and twist events to serve their ends (particularly that odious ‘THINK OF THE CHILDREN’ mentality, which is a phrase I’ve come to associate with a particular wretchedness of the soul) are dangerous, yes, but not quite as dangerous as the ripples they send out. Those ripples touch other people, who in turn send out more ripples, and the balance of things shift and things often get worse for someone in particular, and so the initial paradigm we see in the beginning (people KNOW what the Chicken Ranch is but they don’t interfere with it and leave well enough alone; they’re not hurting anyone, they’re bringing in money, there’s no NEED to make a fuss) is toppled over. Melvin’s actual presence in the movie is a lot bigger than his on-screen scenes.

The mix of wholesome and fun in a movie about, well, a brothel, may seem an odd one at first, but it pervades this movie overall. The song and dance numbers are a lot of fun and very campy (and given the plot, it proves that campy and serious can be part of the same venn diagram); I don’t have a particular favorite, but they’re all quite good. Sidestep near the end, from a governor who is a ghost for most of the movie and then displays his refusal to commit to anything except for the most popular option, is a fun one and a walking metaphor for a character that we hear OF but never see until a pivotal moment. The sexual actions taking place in the brothel are of course not shown but hinted or euphemistically suggested with gymnastic dance scenes that are just goofy enough that even my sex-repulsed self found apt to get the point across.

Even so, the movie ends on a dour note; the governor, whom Sheriff Ed beseeches for help as their last option to keep the Chicken Ranch open, refuses to help at all in favor of just going along with public opinion, officially closing the Ranch. It is important to note that while this tail end of the movie, following a fight between Miss Mona and Sheriff Ed as things that can’t really be taken back are said, is a lot more dour than the preceding movie’s events, it doesn’t feel like a downward spiral except in a plot sense. All of this builds up over the movie, as opinion and rabble rousing increasingly turns against our protagonists. It feels very natural, and ultimately bittersweet. That sense of camp and fun never really leave, but take a gradual slope to the end.

This movie famously had, in response to audience reactions, a bittersweet ending more heavily on the sweet; the girls of the Chicken Ranch disappear to places unknown with little option left for them, but with the addition of Miss Mona and Ed marrying. In contrast, the original ending and that of the theatrical one is NOT so sweet, as Miss Mona and Ed simply part ways after the latter offers a marriage proposal, gently turned down by Miss Mona. Personally I generally tend to like happier endings in a personal sense, which is a bit of a paradox because I tend to find sadder or poignant endings to stick much harder. They HURT more, which often tends to make them more memorable.

Provided that such an ending actually fits the tone of a story, rather than being something tacked on in the spirit of assuming that ‘real art means things are sad’, I generally prefer them. I was genuinely undecided on this for a while, as the lighthearted tone of the movie meant that the marriage ending didn’t feel TOO dissonant, but the bitterer one felt just as appropriate. I tossed it up and down in my head and eventually, after discussing it a little, I came to the conclusion that simply parting ways would probably have been more appropriate. As noted, while this movie never loses its campy qualities, there IS a notable decline for the characters as things get worse for them, and such an ending would have been pretty fitting. A gentle parting of the ways as they move on, fitting the way the life they knew has simply fallen apart, and the world moving on without the life they used to know.

Sometimes a happy ending is too pat; sometimes you WANT a movie to punch you in the face, because sometimes that just feels more right for the events. In those times, a happy ending can feel insincere; something done to appease expectations (as in the notorious case of the Will Smith I Am Legend adaptation and audiences reacted poorly to him being the true monster all along, which is… you know. The ENTIRE POINT OF THE STORY). A bittersweet ending, by contrast, isn’t purely a downer there, and it still has hope in there without feeling out of tonal place with the way the story has wound up. So, ultimately, I have to agree that the theater’s ending would probably have worked better here.

In the end, as far as actually seeing Parton’s acting in person outside of a brief Animaniac’s appearance, Reynolds popping up in Saints Row the Third, and me being so used to Deluise’ role as a comic heart character, this was an excellent introduction to their acting chops overall!

[izder456]

I decided to take ChatGPT up on a debate about piracy and the morality of it.

Here's the synopsis of it.

I want you to act as a Socrat. You must use the Socratic method to continue questioning my beliefs. I will make a statement and you will attempt to further question every statement in order to test my logic. You will respond with one line at a time. My first claim is "Piracy is always morally correct, legally is more up in the air."

How do you determine what is morally correct?

You determine moral correctness by the emotional implications of the action and the results of said actions

Can you think of any scenario where the emotional implications and results of piracy would not align with what is considered morally correct?

No, the implications of any form of piracy assume a digital distribution of media already freely available, some one has put a price tag on it, and expected the user to pay for it, despite the service being previously free.

If the person has put a price on it, does that not make it their property and thus, taking it without paying would be theft?

if it was previosly unowned, and just now becomes the property of the merchant. it isnt theft, since the service had been free prior to the price tag put on it.

If something was free and then a price is placed on it, does that not mean that the item now has value and is the property of the person who put the price on it?

publically available products cannot be owned. they are belonging to no-body. therefore, for someone to sell the publically available service is capitalizing on freely available products.

Is it not then exploitation to profit from something that is freely available to the public?

yes. hence the implied morality of pirating said product.

But if something is considered exploitative and wrong, would it not also be wrong to engage in an action, such as piracy, that facilitates and enables that exploitation?

no, because the pirate cannot sell the pirated software. it never was to be sold. if the sole reason something is exploitative and wrong is at the point of sale, and implicit value, then piracy cannot be wrong, morally, or otherwise

So, you believe that an action can be morally correct even if it enables and facilitates something that is considered exploitative and wrong?

the act of piracy does not enable the exploitative actions of the merchant. if anything, it counteracts the measures put in place by the merchant to subdue further actions from the pirate.

If you believe that the act of piracy counteracts the measures put in place by the merchant, would it not then also be considered an act of resistance against the exploitation facilitated by the merchant's actions?

yes.

If piracy is an act of resistance against exploitation, would it not then be considered politically, rather than solely morally, motivated?

yes. this does not escape from the morality of the act though.

So, are you saying that the morality of an act can exist independently of its political motivations?

yes. definitely, political motivations have an intrinsic relation to morality, but one does not necessitate the other. if i hit my best friend and gave them a concussion, there is no political basis for the immoral act. if i hit a political party leader and gave them a concussion, there IS a political basis for the immoral act. if a person makes habit of hitting people and giving them a concussion, there is no political basis in attempting to stop said persons actions. if a political party leader makes habit of hitting their political opponents and giving them a concussion, there IS a political basis in attempting to stop said political party leader's actions.

So, you believe that the morality of an act can be independent of the context and motivations behind it?

yes. if piracy is politically motivated, what political stance is the act based upon?

The political stance could be based on resistance against exploitative practices, as previously discussed. But, the exact political stance may vary and depend on the individual's specific beliefs and values.

exactly

Would it not then be more accurate to say that the morality of an act, such as piracy, is subjective and dependent on the individual's beliefs and values, rather than being objectively morally correct or incorrect?

humans are innately justice seeking creatures, from the merchants perspective piracy is theft. from the consumers perspective the very act of selling said public media is theft from the public domain. yes, from a all encompassing viewpoint, it is subjective. but since the merchant never owned said media, the consumers perspective trumps the merchants.

So, you believe that the morality of an act is not objectively determined, but rather it is determined based on which perspective is considered more valid or legitimate?

not considered, objectively more valid and legitimate.

Would it not then be fair to say that the morality of an act, such as piracy, is ultimately determined by societal and cultural norms and values, and can change over time and across different cultures?

[the-library-alcove]

So my best friend is a Bisexual man who was raised in a conservative Christian home that homeschooled him and amount others things taught him that LGBT were going to burn in hell and deserved no rights. He has since left the religion and moved to a different part of the country that is a lot more pro-lgbt and a lot less religious. He’s a lot happier now having embraced both his sexuality and atheism! But according to you, you he’s still a Christian. Even tho his family rejected him and he’d rather be homeless, which he currently is, than to return to them. Christianity abused him for no other reason than he’s bi but you don’t care and still put him in the same category as his abusers. Do you not see how fucked up that is?

Culturally Christian Atheist whining that he doesn't understand that he and his friend are still going to have deep-seated influences from their upbringing on how they view the world and saying that the mere statement that, no, you didn't spring forth from the ground as a fully formed adult with zero influences is somehow "putting him in the same category as his abusers".

It's judgement neutral, yah dummy! If you're feeling that it's an attack, that's on you, but FFS, this is something I get from every fucking Culturally Christian atheist to the point that getting this whine is itself part of being a culturally Christian Atheist--because you're acting like a Christian who has been mistakenly labeled to be a "Catholic" and now has to throw a tantrum over it!

But shit, dude, I'm a culturally Jewish atheist! See, it's that easy to acknowledge your background! Can you stop acting like an Evangelical with a persecution complex when I point out that you have a historical background that's going to inform how you view things and interact with the world? You're not a video game character who spawns when the protagonist enters a new zone! I'm not saying that you're still religiously a Christian! Honestly, I'm proud of you for walking away from that faith--statistically, you've probably left Evangelical Christianity, which is the closest thing to a fully fledged Religion of Evil on the planet! But it's still going to leave marks on you and your mindset that take a lot more work to identify and acknowledge and remove than just going "I don't accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior!" And I can tell that you've still got work to do--because you're whining like an Evangelical that you're being persecuted for someone making an observation about your cultural background, including, for starters:

Taking my statements out of context to attack me.

Treating this as a black-and-white issue.

Treating my statement as a moral attack.

Assuming that you have all of the answers already and other perspectives are a danger to be attacked and dismissed.

Treating me as an outsider to be attacked for pointing out something, rather than someone trying to help you fix a problem.

Among others. You still have some deeply embedded cultural programming that comes from being raised in a Culturally Christian background environment that includes behaviors like that. But rather than try to remove them and get rid of those vestiges of thinking, you're instead proving my point. And while you aren't as obnoxious as some other Culturally Christian Atheists I've run into, this belligerence and resistance to actually listening because you're convinced that you already have done all of the work and possess Truth is so Culturally Christian it hurts. Like, I feel sorry for you. Still going to block you, because there no more point in trying to have a conversation with you than the missionaries who have told me that I exist to be a blood sacrifice to bring back Jesus, and for the same reason: You have your Truth, and damned be anyone who says anything that contradicts it.

EDIT: Also, checking out your blog and seeing you deliberately going after Jewish bloggers even more than you go after Christians, to say how much you hate them for existing and mocking our own origins?

Yeah, that antisemitism is also part of your Culturally Christian background. Ask yourself why you hate Jews so much and so specifically.

[noknowshame]

The Aesthetic Symbolism of Pirate Flags: An Essay

Last year for a course I took called "Anthropology of Art and Aesthetics". For our final, based on class readings we had to write an essay about the symbolic value of an object of our choosing. For obvious reasons I wrote it about pirate flags.

It never occurred to me before to post it here because it's... a lot, but (if I do say so myself) despite its density it covers some cool ideas about art theory, history, and queer interpretations of piracy.

(it's also full of a ton of academically-veiled Black Sails references)

A skull and crossed swords on a field of black. Two flags bear this identical iconography: one in 1717, hanging from the topmast of a ship and fluttering gently in the winds of the West Indies, the other in 2021, hanging tapestry-like on the wall of my bedroom, billowing in the artificial breeze of air conditioning. It is time, rather than objective imagery, that separate these two objects. When removed from their original intended contexts, artifacts like my pirate flag can often come across as absurd – if not directly insulting – in reference to those contexts. How bizarre would it seem to a resident of the early 18th century that an object associated with violent criminals is not only positively regarded three hundred years later, but is a wildly popular decorative commodity rarely considered with any gravity? As infantile as their modern use appears at a surface level, from an aesthetic and anthropological perspective, the symbolic significance of these flags has changed (and remained the same) in ways that make the transition to their current interpretation perfectly sensible. The endurance of the pirate flag both historically and contemporarily is the result of its role as a performative, instrumental form of art that ultimately speaks for itself.

What is art? This, of course, is not a new question, and it is inherently one that cannot be answered with any solid definition. Perhaps, then, an art object is not something that can be identified with a statement, but instead something that captivates through prompting further questions. Alfred Gell homes in on a specific question to view art with, that being “how did this thing get to be here?” (67) Looking up at the flag on my wall, it’s a deceivingly simplistic question to answer at first. It is here because I bought it. I wished to have one, so I searched online among hundreds of pirate flags available, chose the one I preferred, and had it shipped to my apartment (notably, without any fear of its mode of transportation coming under attack). However, the supply chain involved in producing, delivering, and receiving it is neither the whole story nor the point I am attempting to make. To truly answer, “how did this thing get to be here?” (and whether or not pirate flags are art), we have to dive deeper. Why exactly is this something I desired to encounter? What does it represent, and what did it?

In the 1700s when these flags were in active use, encountering one was a much less innocent form of encounter. Their purpose was to provoke victims of piracy into asking themselves the very same question, “how did this thing get to be here?”, but with a distinct intention in mind: to make them fear the answer. This assumed answer was that the flag existed because the men it belonged to had abandoned civilization. Therefore, they were no longer beholden to the moral principles or laws that prevented them from being a mortal threat. After all, pirates were already legally considered hostis humani generis: enemies of all mankind, so if merchant sailors attempted to flee or fight, what reason did they have to show mercy? Naturally, nothing this complex was going through a sailor’s mind. Through memento mori symbols of death-heads, bones, swords, hourglasses, bleeding hearts, and more, no elaboration was necessary – it was abundantly clear what the flags meant. Death. In this way, they functioned as visual intimidation (much like the prow-boards of ceremonial boats in the Trobriand Islands). They could also be interpreted as a form of psychological trap. Of course, the flags were not dangerous themselves at all, being nothing more than a piece of cloth. But the anticipation of violence that that cloth conveyed was quite effective. As Gell puts it, this is because “a trap, by its very nature, is a transformed representation of its maker, the hunter, and the prey animal, its victim, and of their mutual relationship.” (203) If the flag did not clearly convey the relationship intended between the pirates and their particular kind of prey, there would be little to discuss.

Gell uses his interpretation of traps to argue that they are, in fact, art. “I would define as a candidate artwork any object or performance that potentially rewards such scrutiny because it embodies intentionalities that are complex, demanding of attention and perhaps difficult to reconstruct fully” (211) Pirate flags fulfill all of these criteria, particularly when you realize just how performative their actions generally were. Pirates would not have their reputation if there wasn’t any truth to their violent tendencies, but generally speaking, it was in their best interest to avoid confrontation if possible. The risk of potential damage to their ships and crewman was simply not economical when sheer intimidation worked equally well. Just as in Francis Bacon’s paintings “the horror is multiplied because it is inferred from the scream, and not the reverse” (Deluze 38), a pirate flag is most effective due to the inference of death rather than actual death. To their victims the flags signaled impending doom, but more often than not that fear was what ironically prevented the threat from having to be fulfilled in the first place. It is a symbol caught in the precarious balance between war and peace.

Entrapment, however, is not the only way that pirate flags were complex symbolic objects. Their art served other nuanced purposes that likely have more to do with their contemporary significance. So far, we have already discussed how they created a functional division not dissimilar to predator and prey, and how that was taken advantage of strategically. However, for the pirates themselves, the flags did the precise opposite: it unified.

First and foremost, all flags are pieces of socially functional art, that serve both to unify those it includes and display that unification to those it excludes. Oftentimes, the specific iconography displayed is also embedded with meaning relevant to the in-group, thus serving a narrative function that further reinforces the idea of shared cultural identity. As touched on, pirates in the 18th century were hostis humani generis. Regardless of the highly varied reasons they came into their lives of crime, once they committed an act of piracy, there was no returning to a civilization that now would only promise them a noose. This visceral and severe Othering necessitated a sense of belonging be re-created. The flags as art fostered this quite well. They were a tangible object that could embody and animate the worlds the pirates envisioned for themselves: a new microcosm of nationality. What made pirate flags particularly effective was their dual nature. Generally, the specific iconography was distinct for the ships of different captains, but they all shared similar enough motifs to still be perceived as a unified front. As grand as the scale of piracy appears in retrospect, in reality most of them operated during the same few years and knew each other personally. The intimacy of what the flags represented was no lie. They were a tight-knit culture made up of the Othered– a nation of thieves, and it was this that made the flags an effective threat. What, after all, could frighten civilization more than the very people they alienated deciding they ought to organize?

That fear of the unified Other is one that has repeated throughout history, and it is precisely why pirate flags have survived the test of time. When the world is indifferent to you at best and antagonistic to you at worst, the fantasy of being perceived as a threat ­ ­– rather than a victim – is a powerful one. This makes pirate flags a form of “minor art”, as much today if not more than they were initially. To an extent they are situated in reality, but they also represent a “sense of worlds that exist ‘somewhere out there’” (Silvio 61), where oppression can be actively fought, and Otherness is a force of empowerment rather than isolation. This is demonstrated in one demographic that has especially come to embrace symbols of piracy: the queer community, of which I myself am a member. Although under very different circumstances, for much of western history queer people have been criminalized in ways surprisingly comparable to pirates. To exist meant to be dehumanized, and to be caught meant death. It is no wonder then that the stories of pirates appeal to members of these communities. This association is amplified by the fact that historically pirates often were queer. This is in a literal sense, but more importantly, in a broader sense of “queer” in terms of subversive diversity. On largely egalitarian and democratic pirate ships, crewmen were considered equals regardless of their backgrounds, unheard of in the monarchical cultures they left behind that valued heredity and rank. Additionally, since they had already been rejected by society, there was no need to hold to its strict standards in mannerisms, dress, or interpersonal conduct. Much like the rainbow flag is a symbol of pride, joy, and rejection of despair, pirate flags represent freedom, self-expression, and a warning to those who would attempt to stifle it.

In the same way that pirate flags were functional, this diversity was also functional. In reference to the history of Taiwan (which itself started off as a pirate haven), Teri Silvio posits this: "When you’re trying to survive, how can you not be utilitarian?" (111). This is to say, when you as an outsider do not have access to the resources provided by civilization, it makes no sense at all to create even more outsiders through exclusion. Diversity, therefore, emerges as a form of necessary practicality. In modern contexts, practical diversity is why “queer” is such an all-encompassing word. The moral panic of the “the mid 20th century and increasing gay rights activism began largely as a result of people of different identities realizing, just like the pirates did, how impactful they could be if they decided to work together– under a unifying flag. This is because oppression at its core functions through individuation. Civilization as-it-is prospers through preventing “minor” groups from realizing their collective power, or breaking that collective power once it is realized. The acceptance of queer identities in recent years is the result of society’s failure to do so (although not for lack of trying). Pirates, on the other hand, were not so successful historically. Ironically, the Golden Age of Piracy ended not by killing the pirates, but by pardoning them. This was a very deliberate effort on the part of the British Empire to divide the pirates’ unified self-image by offering the opportunity to revoke their Otherness. Once their diversity and unifying alienation could no longer serve as a stable foundation, their flags could not hold them together. From there, the end was inevitable.

The cliché phrase that “history is written by the victors” is not always true. In the short-term the pirates may have lost their battle against civilization, but in the long-term there is no doubt whatsoever that they won. Three centuries later pirates hold such an unwavering place in the collective unconscious that there was no need for me to even introduce them at the beginning of this essay. They are a beloved archetype, and all over the world people like me fly their flags as a source of inspiration. The unification that was lost is regained elsewhere. One could take issue with the way that pirates are romantically mythologized today given they were essentially the 18th century equivalents of gangs and terrorist; however, their mythology was in formation from the first moments those flags were raised. This is something I believe many of the pirates were well-aware of. Art is what survives, what remains visible, and it is often more powerful than any direct reality it represents. While their flags may have been unable to continue their literal, practical roles in the performance of piracy, they endure because of their role as icons deeply embedded with the narrative of Otherness. They can thus become the instruments for any group that wishes to be personally addressed in their particular way. They tell you: do not fear being cast into the shadows– you should be the one that is feared. There is freedom in the dark, and one day, in a faraway time and place you will never know, you will not be the villain in this story. You will be celebrated.

So, why is this flag hanging on my wall? How did this thing get to be here? It remains because – despite such depths of history and myth and meaning – in the end, it is simply self-evident.

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

Works Cited

Deleuze, Gilles, and Francis Bacon. Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation. Portmanteau Press, 1992.

Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Clarendon Press, 2007.

Silvio, Teri. Puppets, Gods, and Brands: Theorizing the Age of Animation from Taiwan. University of Hawai’i Press, 2019.

Facilitated by a somewhat absurd accumulated knowledge of early 18th century piracy.