#but with the implicit knowledge that That Is Me. Was Me. Who Am I. Who Was That.

[mycannibalromance]

i dont think we talk about how deeply unsettling it is to look at old pictures of yourself enough

[just-a-ghost00]

How can you improve ?

This PAC is meant to provide you with general advice to help you improve and move forward on your path. This is going to be a very simple reading, with only two cards for each group.

Group 1 - 8 of wands & Justice

You need to combine your creative power drive with careful execution. Your ideas and desires are worth exploring but you should proceed strategically. Act before any little hint of doubt can slither in your mind and stop you from moving forward. Don’t give yourself the time to hesitate but don’t be careless about it either. This is a difficult thing to do but if you manage to get into action at the precise point where you’ve thought about it enough without overthinking it, then you’ll be good to go. The second thing I am picking up on is communication. It is important that you clearly communicate your boundaries. Without exception. No matter who is standing in front of you. No matter how good they were to you. If someone crosses a boundary, it is mandatory that you call them out. No one gets a free pass, you deserve to be respected no matter what. You are no doormat, no punching ball nor a stress ball. You are a loveable human being and you should be treated as such.

Group 2 - 2 of cups, The Devil

Having the devil as an advice card feels a bit counter intuitive 😂 Combined with the 2 of cups, on top of that. To me, in this case, this represents sensuality and pleasure. Your key to improving is to allow yourself to indulge in whatever guilty pleasure you have. Want to eat that cupcake ? Go for it. Thinking about going on a vacation ? Fly as soon as you get the chance. You’ve been running in circles wondering if you should send that love confession? Don’t think twice. Allow yourself to be happy. Allow yourself to exist. You deserve to live. You deserve to take up space. You are allowed to laugh. You are allowed to have fun. You are allowed to love and be loved. It is not a sin to do what you like because you want it. It is not forbidden to let your guard down and just allow yourself to be. You are enough. Be in that receptive energy. Go with the flow and take things as they go, one step at a time. Slow down. Enjoy your life. Find your rhythm. Find your joy. Explore. Connect with people. Form partnerships. Do not deprive yourself of something out of guilt. You can never regret doing what you love.

Group 3 - 7 of wands, Hierophant

As the 7 of wands represents competition among other things and the Hierophant maturity, I feel like the first piece of advice is to be the bigger person. If anyone is coming at you with a bad vibe, do not even bother answering back. Don’t give them a taste of their own medicine, no matter how tempting that may sound. Believe me you won’t be feeling any better afterwards. The true victory lies in being able to tame your demons. The second piece of advice is to not give up on learning. If you’re a student, keep going and don’t give up on your education right now. If you wanted to learn a new skill but you feel like that would be too hard for you, don’t let that stop you. Keep pushing. Keep fighting for your goals and dreams. Seek for knowledge in everything and everyone. Take any opportunity presented to you as a lesson that will only make you wiser and richer. Don’t take things personally. See the bigger picture. Notice the patterns. Read between the lines. Don’t let yourself be fooled by appearances and look for the finer details. I’ll give you an example by using my own personal experience. My father was acting a bit oddly lately. He kept criticizing me every time I was doing something that I found enjoyable. At first, my reaction was to feel offended and it made me angry so I would be acting aloof as well. But then one morning I just sat for a minute or two after one more episode like this happened and I realized that the implicit message was that he was feeling sad and lonely, and the reason why he was acting that way was because he envied what I had and wanted to be a part of it. He envied the fact that despite not feeling very good myself, I was still able to do fun things and enjoy myself while he thought he couldn’t. Now if you look at that from an external point of view, you would say that had he allowed himself to do the same, he would have felt better. Which I would agree with. But being caught up in his mental fog, he didn’t realize that and instead thought that nagging at me would get me to pay him more attention when it generated the complete opposite.

[fuckyeahisawthat]

The failmarriage hatesex fic is growing a second chapter which is very funny to me because Paul/Irulan was a ship I was actively not interested in. But apparently I just needed to unlock the Secret Good Ship Dynamic in my head that makes it compelling to me personally.

Calm, cool, collected ice queen Irulan, effortlessly manipulating things from behind the scenes? Boring to me apparently. Irulan who is frustrated, furious and scared, desperately trying to find a lever to exercise some control over her situation but extremely aware of the fact that she is trapped on the space cocaine death planet under the control of a man who has recently become the most powerful person in the universe and seems rather inclined to violence? Fucking catnip.

And then combine that with Paul being cold and kind of mean but never physically violent, which leaves the threat implicit, which is often scarier (and Paul is always most interesting when he's scary), and leaning into that ambiguity of never exactly knowing how self-aware he is about how much power he has over her.

And then the final element being that Chani is not there. Which seems counterintuitive because I am Chani's #1 defense lawyer. But the thing that I always found unappealing about Paul/Irulan was the idea of the blonde offworlder princess supplanting the indigenous woman canon love interest both in terms of narrative focus and as Paul's primary or ideal partner. And I could never quite make the threesome dynamic work in my head with the book characters because I could never figure out why Chani would ever like or trust Irulan, especially after the whole, y'know, feeding her birth control without her knowledge or consent FOR YEARS thing (which is horrifying enough on a person to person level, but add in the racial/colonial dimension to it and f u c k i n g y i k e s d u d e.)

But ironically once Chani removes herself from the situation--for completely justified reasons--her place in the narrative becomes irrefutable. Because Paul and Irulan both know that he wouldn't give her a second glance if Chani were still around; that he's only fucking her because she's there; that he is just using her as a stand-in for the person he'd rather be doing this with, and she's an inferior replacement as far as he's concerned. Chewy chewy chewy.

And the cherry on top is Irulan belatedly figuring out that she maybe possibly has a tiny bit of a humiliation kink, and the only person who's ever clocked it is Paul. RIP girl but he is gonna be SO fucking annoying about that.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Middlemen without enshittification

I'm on tour with my new novel The Bezzle! Catch me next in SALT LAKE CITY (Feb 21, Weller Book Works) and SAN DIEGO (Feb 22, Mysterious Galaxy). After that, it's LA, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix and more!

Enshittification describes how platforms go bad, which is also how the internet goes bad, because the internet is made of platforms, which is weird, because platforms are intermediaries and we were promised that the internet would disintermediate the world:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/30/go-nuts-meine-kerle/#ich-bin-ein-bratapfel

The internet did disintermediate a hell of a lot of intermediaries – that is, "middlemen" – but then it created a bunch more of these middlemen, who coalesced into a handful of gatekeepers, or as the EU calls them "VLOPs" (Very Large Online Platforms, the most EU acronym ever).

Which raises two questions: first, why did so many of us end up flocking to these intermediaries' sites, and how did those sites end up with so much power?

To answer the first question, I want you to consider one of my favorite authors: Crad Kilodney (RIP):

https://archive.org/details/thecradkilodneypapers

When I was growing up, Crad was a fixture on the streets of Toronto. All through the day and late into the evening, winter or summer, Crad would stand on the street with a sign around his neck ("Very famous Canadian author, buy my books, $2" or sometimes just "Margaret Atwood, buy my books, $2"). He wrote these deeply weird, often very funny short stories, which he edited, typeset, printed, bound and sold himself, one at a time, to people who approached him on the street.

I had a lot of conversations with Crad – as an aspiring writer, I was endlessly fascinated by him and his books. He was funny, acerbic – and sneaky. Crad wore a wire: he kept a hidden tape recorder rolling in his coat and he secretly recorded conversations with people like me, and then released a series of home-duplicated tapes of the weirdest and funniest ones:

https://archive.org/details/on-the-street-crad-kilodney-vol-1

I love Crad. He deserves more recognition. There's an on-again/off-again documentary about his life and work that I hope gets made some day:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/09/free-sample/#putrid-scum

But – and this is the crucial part – there are writers out there I want to hear from who couldn't do what Crad did. Maybe they can write books, but not edit them. Or edit them, but not typeset them. Or typeset, but not print. Or print, but not spend the rest of their lives standing on a street-corner with a "PUTRID SCUM" sign around their neck.

Which is fine. That's why we have intermediaries. I like booksellers (I was one!). I like publishers. I like distributors. I like their salesforce, who go forth and convince the booksellers of the world to stock books like mine. I have ten million things I want to do before I die, and I'm already 52, and being a sales-rep for a publisher isn't on my bucket list. I am so thankful that someone else wants to do this for me.

That's why we have intermediaries, and why disintermediation always leads to some degree of re-intermediation. There's a lot of explicit and implicit knowledge and specialized skill required to connect buyers and sellers, creators and audiences, and other sides of two-sided markets. Some producers can do some of this stuff for themselves, and a very few – like Crad – can do it all, but most of us need some help, somewhere along the way. In the excellent 2022 book Direct, Kathryn Judge lays out a clear case for all the good that middlemen can do:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/12/direct-the-problem-of-middlemen/

So why were we all so anxious for disintermediation back in the late 1990s? Here's a hint: it wasn't because we hated intermediaries – it was because we hated powerful intermediaries.

The point of an intermediary is to serve as a conduit between producers and consumers, buyers and sellers, audiences and creators. When an intermediary gains power over the audience – say, by locking them inside a walled garden – and then uses that lock-in to screw producers and appropriate an ever larger share of the value going between them, that's when intermediaries become a problem.

The problem isn't that someone will handle ticketing for your gig. The problem is that Ticketmaster has locked down all the ticketing, and the venues, and the promotions, and it uses that power to gouge fans and rip off artists:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/20/anything-that-cant-go-on-forever-will-eventually-stop/

The problem isn't that there's a well-made website that lets you shop for goods sold by many small merchants and producers. It's that Amazon has cornered this market, takes $0.51 out of every dollar you spend there, and clones and destroys any small merchant who succeeds on the platform:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/25/greedflation/#commissar-bezos

The problem isn't that there's a website where you can stream most of the music ever recorded. It's that Spotify colludes with the Big Three labels to rip off artists and sneaks crap you don't want to hear into your stream in order to collect payola:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/#stunt-publishing

The problem isn't that there's a website where you can buy any audiobook you want. It's that Amazon's Audible locks every book to its platform forever and steals hundreds of millions of dollars from creators:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/25/can-you-hear-me-now/#acx-ripoff

The problem, in other words, isn't intermediation – it's power. The thing that distinguishes a useful intermediary from an enshittified bully is power. Intermediaries gain power when our governments stop enforcing competition law. This lets intermediaries buy each other up and corner markets. Once they've formed cozy cartels, they can capture their regulators and commit rampant labor, privacy and consumer violations with impunity. That capture also lets them harness governments to punish smaller players that want to free workers, creators, audiences and customers from walled gardens. It also hands them a whip-hand over their workers, so that any worker who refuses to aid in these nefarious plans can be easily fired:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/30/go-nuts-meine-kerle/#ich-bin-ein-bratapfel

A world with intermediaries is a better world. As much as I love Crad Kilodney's books, I wouldn't want to live in a world where the only books on my shelves came from people prepared to stand on a street-corner wearing a "FOUL PUS FROM DEAD DOGS" sign.

The problem isn't intermediaries – it's powerful intermediaries. That's why the world's surging antitrust movement is so exciting: by reinstating competition law, we can keep intermediaries small and comparatively weak, so that creators and audiences, drivers and riders, sellers and buyers, and other groups seeking to connect will not find themselves made subservient to middlemen.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/19/crad-kilodney-was-an-outlier/#intermediation

[myimaginationplain]

I've found that when it comes to discussing who has the best claim to the iron throne and/or the Targaryen dynasty, there's often this implicit assumption that when Jon finds out about his true parentage, the knowledge will inevitably leak to the general Westerosi public. People love to theorize about whether or not the Northerners would continue to support Jon if his being Rhaegar's son came to light, or if he would be pushed as heir to the iron throne over Dany & Aegon, & I'm just like...how would any of them find out about it? Why would any of them find out about it?

I feel like some people believe that when Jon finds out about R + L = J, he'll, I dunno, send out news letters about it or something? Publicly renounce his status as Eddard Stark's son? I don't exactly understand what people think Jon would do with the information, but anything less than keeping as tight a lid on it as possible would be very out of character for Jon. Guys, we're talking about the same guy who purposefully gave a young mother the wrong baby. He's not gonna be cavalier about this.

The only people we can really be certain he'd feel the need to tell the truth to are Arya & Sansa. We know that Bran is likely to already know the truth himself by then through his greenseer tree-god bullshit; Rickon, even if he is found & taken to Winterfell by the time the other siblings reconvene (which I find highly unlikely), would probably be considered too young to trust with information like that.

Daenerys is also an extremely likely candidate for being one of the few people Jon would tell, although this is variable, as it depends on what sort of relationship you believe she & Jon will have by the time R + L = J is revealed. I for one am betting on she & Jon already being involved in some capacity by the time he finds out, thus making her one of the people he'd tell. But if you're in the camp of people who think they'll be enemies by then, he probably wouldn't tell her in that scenario.

Sam is furthest down on the very short list of people Jon would probably tell. I think it's likely, seeing how much he trusts Sam & leans on him for support. But still, it's not a sure thing.

So, including Howland Reed (who has successfully kept the secret for ~17 years now), that makes just 6-7 people who would be privy to Jon's parentage. None of whom would have much motivation to go screaming about it from the hilltops in any scenario where they're still behaving like themselves. (If any of you bring up show!Sansa here, then I'm gonna beat you with a hammer. Don't be a hypocrite; if you can acknowledge & accept that literally every other character was wildly ooc in Season 8, then do the same with Sansa. Betraying Jon's trust after swearing not to before a heart tree is just as ooc for book!Sansa as purposefully burning Kings' Landing to ash would be for book!Daenerys.)

Even in the event that Jon rides a dragon, I think that can easily be explained away by lying about Jon's mother. "Oh, why can I ride a dragon? Not many people know this, but my mother was actually a Lyseni whore. You know they have some Valyrian blood in them. She died in childbirth, though, which is why my lord father took me in." Who's gonna call his bluff on that? Ned's resolute silence on Jon's mother would absolutely work in his favor. The historical precident set by Nettles & others like her means that Jon can 100% just say his mother was the daughter of some unknown dragonseed or something.

IMO, the real question we should be asking is, if Jon were to have children, would he ever tell them the truth?

[alliluyevas]

Do you think they should make a Mormon pioneer American Girl?

Would I personally get a kick out of this? Yes. Do I actually think they should? Probably not.

First of all, pretty much all AG historical dolls have to navigate complex and difficult historical topics at least to some extent. Some have done it more successfully than others. For instance, Felicity was my favorite historical character as a child and I still like her as a character and enjoy her books, but they don't handle slavery well at all. I think creating a book series and a collection that talks about Mormon history in a way that is a) historically accurate and sensitive b) appeals to LDS families, who would likely be the primary audience and overwhelming majority of doll purchasers for this hypothetical character c) maybe even appeals to a broader market would be a really tall order.

Also, assuming that by "Mormon pioneer doll" you mean a character who comes to Utah in one of the first waves of migration in the mid-to-late 1840s or early 1850s, that is very close in era to Kirsten, whose stories begin in 1854, and who is also a frontier settler. There would likely be a lot of overlap between Kirsten's collection and this hypothetical doll's, as well as in the period details in the books. So this begs the question of how much this doll's inclusion would add to the overall AG historical characters canon. Of course, a major focus in Kirsten's books is her immigration story and her Swedish heritage (though, actually, you could write Utah Pioneer Doll as Scandinavian too given how much LDS conversion there was in that region during this period. That would create even more overlap with Kirsten's story, though.) By contrast, a major focus in Hypothetical Utah Pioneer Doll's story would likely be her religion, and this would be something that would be unique to her.

I wouldn't say that AG has shied away entirely from addressing religious faith and practice with their historical dolls. After all, for most of the classic six-book historical character series, the third book is centered around Christmas celebrations (for Rebecca, the focus is on Hanukkah instead and for Kaya her book series is structured differently than those of the other girls and I am not sure there's a holiday book at all.) In terms of the girls whose books I've reread most recently, Addy's church attendance is mentioned frequently in almost all her books and it's probably more thematically central than for most of the other Christian historical characters. Addy's denomination is also explicitly mentioned in the text (her family attends an African Methodist Episcopal church), while for many other characters it is more implicit. (For instance, Felicity is likely Anglican and Kirsten is almost certainly Lutheran, but neither is directly said in text to my knowledge.) It's been more than 15 years since I read Josefina's books, but I remember church attendance being mentioned more prominently in them as well. (Josefina is Catholic, though again I don't remember if this is explicitly stated the text of the stories.) If AG was to create a Mormon historical doll, her religion would have to be explicit and centralized in the text in a way that is very unusual for them.

But not completely unheard of, which brings me to another doll/storyline that is very relevant in this discussion: Rebecca. Rebecca was the first and, for a very long time, the only Jewish doll. The recently added 1990s twins are also Jewish, though it sounds like religion is comparatively deemphasized in their books, and they're much more secular. (This is a pattern with the more recent historical dolls, by which I mean both the ones created more recently and the ones whose stories are set in the more recent historical past.) I think Rebecca is the character for whom religion is the most prominent in her story (though, of course, because Judaism is an ethno-religion her stories address both her ethnic heritage and religious traditions in tandem, which makes it feel even more central.) She was also (again, until the twins were created) the only historical character who is a member of a religious minority in both a modern and historical sense. That is, in Rebecca's era Jewish Americans were a religious minority and they still are today. I think you could argue that as a Native American Kaya is sort of also a religious minority but I don't think that makes sense in the context of her time. For Catholic historical characters (Josefina, Cecile, and Marie-Grace), I think Catholics were a religious minority in the 19th century but given that it's currently the largest Christian denomination in the country that is no longer applicable. (Also, all three of those characters live in regions and eras where Catholics are the majority. I suppose if we count Best Friend dolls, the presumably-Catholic Irish Nellie is the only doll who would have lived in a context where Catholics were in fact a religious minority.)

Obviously, Mormons are Christians--or not so obviously, I suppose, given that a lot of other Christian denominations do not think they are. But they believe they are a Christian denomination, and I think that matters. Whereas obviously Jewish people are a religious minority in the sense that they are very much not Christians. But I do think Mormons were in the past and continue to be a religious minority (and the fact that they have historically troubled the boundaries of Christianity and been excluded from that by a lot of more mainstream Christians definitely contributes to that.) In the modern day, the statistics in terms of percentage of the American population are similar to Judaism, actually. There are slightly fewer Mormon Americans, about 1.5-2 percent of the population, whereas Jewish Americans are about 2-2.5 percent (though this includes people who identify as Jewish but not religiously observant.)

I feel like I'm rambling here, sorry. The point I was trying to make is that with Rebecca we do have an example of a historical doll who is a member of a (both historical and contemporary) religious minority and that minority is of relatively comparable size to Mormonism. Though I think in some ways a Jewish historical doll might be a more likely purchase for non-Jewish families than a Mormon historical doll would be for non-Mormons? I don't know if I can necessarily articulate why, though. Just a feeling. In terms of other differences I can't necessarily articulate--when Rebecca was released, having a historical character who was an Eastern European Jewish immigrant to New York City in the early 1900s felt like almost an obvious choice, as well as a necessary one. And if Rebecca hadn't been introduced, not having a Jewish historical doll would feel like a major oversight. On the contrary, if AG announced a Mormon historical doll I would be genuinely shocked. Like, knock me over with a feather shocked. I also don't feel like the lack of inclusion is a huge oversight in the way that not having a Jewish doll would be. (And, frankly, in the way the fact that they still don't have an Asian American historical doll is).

That being said, I definitely don't want to portray Mormonism as entirely inconsequential or peripheral to American history, as I don't believe it is. Mormonism is by far the largest religious tradition that originated in America and I think it overlays in really interesting ways with broader American historical issues like Westward expansion as well as issues around race, gender, religious freedom, and the boundaries of citizenship. I do think that a Mormon AG doll could potentially be very interesting. I also think it would be controversial and difficult to do well (by whatever standard "doing well" would be.)

[max1461]

I have a lot of thoughts about epistemology and the nature of procedural knowledge. Studying linguistics really impresses upon you just the sheer amount of human knowledge that is procedural and implicit. Languages are these huge, ridiculously complex systems, and even when it comes to the most thoroughly documented language in human history (English), you can still make an entire career documenting as-yet-unknown minutiae of some corner of a corner of the system. It's very difficult to impress upon non-linguists just how big and ill-understood languages are.

There is no book which explains the whole of English grammar. No one on earth knows the complete rule-set of English grammar. Not even for one dialect, not even for one single speaker. No one on earth could write a comprehensive treatise on English pronunciation. We do not know how English works. We do not know how any language works.

And yet, these systems are, in their entirety, already stored in the mind of every native speaker.

When it comes to synchronic information, I literally already know everything there is to know about my dialect of English. I know the timing of every articulation, the exact rules for verb and auxiliary and quantifier placement, the phonology, semantics, syntax, the lexical variation, the registers, all of it. I can deploy it effortlessly while I am thinking about something else. I can form reams of perfectly grammatical English sentences without a second thought. I can deploy the most arcane rules of wh-movement and quantifier raising and whatever else. With no effort at all.

Tens of thousands of people having been making careers trying to document these things, not for my exact dialect but for varieties essentially the same as mine, for 60 years in earnest. And they aren't close to done. And I already know it all. And so do they! They already know it too! The hard part is accessing it, putting it down on paper. That requires experimentation, systematic empirical investigation—science.

So what this has really impressed on me is how much of human knowledge is procedural. How much of it is known only in the doing. I'd wager that's the significant majority of what we know.

This is related to two thoughts that I have.

The first is about the value of unbroken lines of cultural inheritance. With language, the difference between native speakers and second language learners is stark. I think it's safe to say, per current research, that someone who learns a language in adulthood will simply never have the same command of it as someone who learned it in childhood. There are a variety of tests which consistently distinguish native from non-native speakers. You can get very good at a language as an adult learner, good enough for basically all practical needs (except being a spy), but there's a bar your brain just cannot meet.

The unfortunate fact about language is this: if the line of native-speaker-to-child transmission is ever broken, that language is lost. You can try to revive... something, if you want. Like was done with Hebrew in Israel. But it will not be the same language. And not just in the sense that, by the passing of time, all languages inherently change. In a much stronger sense than that. No matter how big a text corpus you have, no matter how well documented the language is, there is an immense body of implicit, undocumented, procedural knowledge that dies when the last native speaker does. And you cannot ever get it back.

I think, often, about the fact that so much human knowledge is procedural, is used and understood and passed on in illegible, difficult to codify ways. I think about the effect that a rapidly changing world has on this body of knowledge. Is it going to be essential for human prosperity? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that losing it will harmless. Certainly I expect much of it to be missed.

The second thought is about an epistemic distinction that I've had in my head for a long time, a distinction I'd like to refer to as that between a science and an art.

An art is any endeavor for which there is an established methodology, an established set of procedures and rules. These rules can be explicit and codified, like the rules of a game, or implicit, like the grammar of a language. They can be absolute or they can be mere guidelines. But in essence, an art is anything you can get good at. Math is quintessentially an art. Football is an art. Ballet is an art. Painting is an art. An art is any endeavor in which procedural knowledge is acquired and channeled and refined and passed on.

Art contrasts with science. A science is any endeavor in which one is shooting blind. Science is the domain of guesswork and trial-and-error. Sciences are those domains that do not lend themself to practice, because... what would you practice at? You cannot get better at science, because science is not about skill. Science is about exploration. It necessarily involves forging your own path, working with odd and faulty tools and odd and faulty ideas, trying to get them to work. Science only exists at the frontiers; when a path is well-tread enough that a body of procedure becomes known and practiced, that path is now art and no longer science.

This distinction is not a taxonomy. Everything we do involves a little bit of art and a little bit of science. Everything involves both a refinement of known skills and an exploration of new avenues. Of course there's a little bit of science in painting, there's quite a lot of science in painting. Every modern and contemporary art museum is full of it! And there's science in math, every once in a while. And there's art in biology and chemistry. Art and science are two modes of engagement, and different endeavors demand them of you in different ways.

Perhaps science is like a glider (you know, from Conway's game of life?), traveling ever outward, and with enough passes over the same area leaving art in its wake. And I think in some sense that all real human knowledge exists as art, that all endeavors capable of producing true insight are either arts or sciences buttressed by a great many supporting arts. Although maybe I'm wrong about this.

I think history is mostly science, and in large part history as a field seems to be on quite solid epistemic footing. So I don't want to convey the idea that science is inherently dubious; clearly from the above description that can't be my position. Nor is art inherently trustworthy—for instance I think jurisprudence is primarily an art, including religious jurisprudence, which of course I don't place any stock in. But I do think I'm getting at something with the idea that there are a range of epistemic benefits to working within an art that one lacks access to in a totally unconstrained science. This is also closely related to my ideas about abstraction and concretization schemes.

Language is an art, one of the oldest arts, but modern linguistics is more or less a science. Like any good science, linguistics has certain arts unique to itself—fieldwork and the comparative method come to mind—but the most vibrant parts of the field at present are science through-and-through. It's a science whose objects of study are arts, and I think maybe that's part of why I've become so aware of this distinction. Or, language is the ur-example of an art, the art from which (if I were to conjecture wildly) I think the cognitive machinery for very many other arts has been borrowed. But I don't really know.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

"If the freshmen can handle learning it- surely Swift could also be able to learn and improve the thing she does as a job? Right? No?"

Yup!!!! That perfectly sums up the past 15 years!

It's so mind boggling to me that her work is still so juvenile and disjointed after years of being spoon fed every resource she could possibly need. Her learning curve is a flat line despite everybody and their mother trying to prop it up, goddamn.

Yes exactly! - This is something I find particularly interesting about Taylor Swift.

How is it possible that nearly twenty years into her career there is no marked improvement in her writing style?

She has had every possible resource on Earth available to her- and yet she does not bother to learn anything.

I really believe that she thinks herself infallible- and therefore in no need of a teacher. I mean- let's be honest, she thinks herself so amazing that people should pay her money just to hear her first drafts and voice memo notes on songs. Everything she touches turns to gold- apparently.

It's plain arrogance to my mind. As I have had nearly a decade worth of college education under my belt, I have been working in my field for years now; however, I live always with the implicit understanding that I am yet at the base of a mountain.

Every book I read- Every new thing I learn, and I am struck again and again that, as a scholar, I am a mere student struggling up the mountain of knowledge from those who lived and died before I ever was a breath of life.

The more knowledgeable I become the more aware I am of how much I have yet to learn.

Why is this not the case with Taylor Swift? I blame arrogance- self-righteous assurance that you are the best of the best will only ever lead people to believe they have nothing to learn from others- and they no longer need to have the self-discipline to continue evolving their craft.

If you really think about it, most of the people who are told that they are a young prodigy suffer this particular delusion. Then they wonder why they never improve, and feel like they are stuck in immaturity, while others- who have had to work harder for the same level of adulation always seem to continue to grow, evolve, and become better.

It's sad- in a way.

[bbygirl-aemond]

do you have thoughts on how ewan mitchell compared aemond to the cyclops in his interview...?

Um absolutely. Ewan Mitchell's recent interview has completely ruined my life, and especially so because of that very part.

In case you missed it, Ewan said that one of the first things the showrunners ever talked to him about was this very idea of the Cyclops. "What does that do to a person?" asked Ewan in the interview. "To know the day you're going down, and feel bulletproof to a point."

This means the showrunners canonically have written parallels between Aemond and the Cyclops from Greek mythology, who traded one eye to Hades, the god of death, in order to see into the future and discover how he died. This wasn't explicitly mentioned, but Norse mythology also carries a very similar story of Odin, who sacrificed one of his eyes in exchange for drinking from a well that would give him unparalleled knowledge. And it suggests that, with the loss of his eye, Aemond gained not just Vhagar, but the knowledge of his own death.

And GOD does that add so much depth to the show, and to his character. Especially the standoff between him and Daemon: a lot of people read this moment as Aemond backing down out of fear of Daemon's implicit threat. But to me, it now seems more like an acknowledgement: "it is not yet our time."

It also, interestingly, strengthens the parallels between him and Helaena, but I'll go into that another time.

Okay, now it's time for book spoilers, and I'm gonna make myself sad with this one.

If Aemond KNOWS how he is going to die-- if he knows WHO kills him-- then it makes him provoking Daemon all the more interesting. Because his toast at the dinner must have been deliberate; right after Daemon kills someone for calling Rhaenyra's children bastards, and Aemond goes and does the same thing? Who would be so insane, except someone who knows that he will not die that day? Who would want to draw Daemon's ire, save for someone who knows it will be inescapable no matter what they do?

It also makes the way he goes to his death all the more honorable. He doesn't try to run away, even though he has much to live for: his family, his lover, and especially their unborn child. In fact, he seeks Daemon out, as if he'd simply been waiting until the time was right. And he goes to mount Vhagar for the last time with grace, and without fear.

Also, there's no way Vhagar didn't know there was no coming out of that fight for Aemond. Regardless of what you think about a dragon-rider bond, we know for a fact that things like pain are transferred through the bond (Rhaenyra and Syrax), and the emotions involved with knowing you're about to die are too strong to not seep through. I've always had this headcanon that Vhagar made a conscious decision to go down with her rider, and I think that if she had knowledge (through Aemond) of his doom, this makes it all the more likely. There's something very beautiful, if very sad, about the oldest, loneliest dragon alive, deciding that if her rider dies she no longer has anything to live for. Or, even, deciding to fight for him, even if his heart tells her it will be futile.

Lastly, if the books are correct in their portrayal of his final moments, it means that despite the years he had to prepare himself, he cannot help but succumb to terror at the end. In the books, he is barely twenty years old-- barely beyond his teenage years--and so of course he dies as what he truly has been, all this time: a lost, and terrified boy.

In summary, I am not ready for what's going to happen to my baby boy :((((((((((((((((((((

[burlowbeanie]

Ok. My prev reblog got me thinking more about Anastasia and samael and they are just so fascinating. A few thoughts below:

Character names are important in the locked tomb series — that’s been well established from the end of gtn, when Muir literally holds our hand and points that out to us. They indicate themes, plot points, relationships. Significantly, we don’t get another naming explanation in ntn and there’s nothing but pronunciations for Anastasia and Samael for htn, leaving us to fill in the blanks. I think that the gtn appendix about names was more than just a fun add-on; it was Muir telling us how to piece the plot together. I’m going to build from some theories I r seen circulating/respond to them with a close reading of the names.

Now, on to the og ninth pair. (I know samael might not have been ninth because it wasn’t definitively founded until his death, but you know what I mean.)

Anastasia: first thing that comes to mind is the Russian princess. I’ve seen theories that Anastasia is the bones in the corner of Alecto’s tomb, which I find convincing. I’ve heard theories that she’s done something like Pal and might be coming back.

Anastasia, missing Russian princess, subject to countless theories and myths and animated movies about her possible return. Only to have her bones finally discovered in a basement. (It’s not confirmed which ones were hers out of her and her sisters’ remains, but all of them are accounted for.)

I don’t know if Anastasia is coming back. But frankly, I doubt it. She is gone. Anyone claiming to be her in Alecto is more likely to be an imposter.

Now, Samael. The first thing that stands out about is name is that it’s one of those -ael angel names. Not surprising, given the impact of Christianity/Catholicism both implicit in the text and, after Nona, now known to explicitly be something influencing the thoughts and actions and persons of many of Jod’s crew (especially Cristabel and Jod himself tbh).

Now, initially that was all I knew. I may have been raised Christian and been, unfortunately, a theology geek, but I do not have a encyclopedic knowledge of all angels ever. Knowing stuff about angels other than, like, Michael and Gabriel always seemed vaguely heretical probably due to boring American Protestantism conditioning, idk. But, I am expecting some deep theological cut with the name so I go to look it up. And boy oh boy was I not disappointed.

So Samael is an archangel who mostly shows up in Jewish texts and lore, not Christian/Catholic stuff. He’s 1) an ambiguous figure, sometimes a fallen angel and sometimes not; 2) often called the angel of death; 3) sometimes associated with Rome/Christianity as the embodiment of sin/danger/god’s wrath against Israel; and 4) in most depictions responsible for Eve taking the fruit, having ridden the serpent “like a camel” and convinced her to do so (because he doesn’t like humanity? To spite heaven? To give them knowledge? Idk how many of those are actual traditions of interpretation.) I unfortunately do not know enough about Judaism to unpack that in full, and I hope that I am not completely misinterpreting something, but it’s fascinating that the “angel of death” is linked to the same place where the “death of god” is laid to rest. Then, there’s the link with Rome/Christianity and how much the necromantic empire reflects those things. The thing that is making me so excited though is his association with the temptation of Eve, the Serpent, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Now. That’s interesting. There’s a character named Angel, or something that translates to that. And she has a dog named noodle. And another fascinating element of tlt it’s use of memes. Several others have pointed out the baffling and one-off connection between snakes (some even suggested the the biblical serpent just from that) and Noodle, with the literal quote “Noodle. Danger” from the Angel, and how it seems to reference the meme-form way of referring to snakes as “danger noodles.” We also know that the Angel is passing down something, possibly the implant, that is an important message. (Angels are, of course, messengers of god).

I think that what they are passing down is Samael, in some form. The Blood of Eden himself. The angel of death. The messenger. The serpent’s companion, the maybe-fallen. And I think that he is going to return in Alecto, as we encounter the death of god.

I always wondered why Anastasia wanted Jod there when she attempted lyctorhood, if that was the truth, how she could have discovered a potentially successful mode of true lyctorhood and not have suspicions about him. I think that “doing the ritual more slowly” wasn’t all she did. I think she potentially found a way to transfer Samael’s consciousness, let him piggyback like Gideon or Pyrrah in htn. I think she got him safe, or at least partially so, when Jod killed him. She wanted to trick Jod into thinking he’s gone or something maybe? I have no idea how the Blood of Eden would have gotten involved, but based on their goddamn name invoking Eden they are definitely linked to him.

If any of the original lyctors or cavaliers are revealed to still exist in Alecto the ninth, it will not be Anastasia, the red herring, the dead bones in a basement finally discovered and proven dead after so much speculation. It will be Samael, the angel of death, the temptation within Eden, the companion to the danger noodle serpent.

[pb-dot]

Sliding into yr asks to request an infodump about His Impossible Brushstrokes now that I know there's Rivals-to-Lovers and Horror. I heard that treat tin shake from 15 blocks away.

I am simplifying a bit when I say Rivals-to-Lovers, it is essentially One-sided admiration both ways -> Awkward politeness -> Something More? -> Wait a minute something's wrong here -> [SPOILER EXPUNGED] -> Night Of Terror -> Rallying -> Fight to the death pt. 1 -> Uneasy Alliance -> Genuine (?) Love? -> [SPOILER EXPUNGED] -> Fight to the death pt. 2 -> [SPOILER EXPUNGED]

I suppose everything between "something's wrong here" and the end can pretty much be collapsed into a Rivals To Lovers arc, although the precise emotions in play at any given time is... more implicit than explicit let's just say.

This is perhaps all getting ahead of myself. Let me start at the beginning:

Oscar Skerry is a San Francisco Art Critic with a singular artistic obsession. He loves the strange, bleak and jagged paintings of one Tomasz Gildebrant, a Polish-Dutch autodidact artist, at least he's assumed to be an autodidact, as nobody can find any documentation for his education. There's actually precious little known about Gildebrant, as he has not made a public appearance for decades, and the only a handful of photographs prove his existence.

Gildebrant's art isn't particularly popular, given how unpleasant many of his paintings are to watch in obscure but tangible ways, but a small community of fans, as well as the allure of his mystery, keeps getting his paintings sold. There might, however, be something more to it. Skerry follows a thread of brutal violence and odd obsession that seem to follow the Gildebrant paintings, and in stepping over a fair few ethical lines himself, he even secures an invitation from Gildebrant himself, to join him in his home in the Romanian mountains.

Once he finally meets the artist behind his obsession near the top of the Carpathian alps, Oscar can't quite get himself to believe that this refined, gregarious man produces art so bleak it is on occasion described as Depression Put On Canvas, but still, under the overwhelming almost-romantic friendliness, something else lurks. Try as he might, Oscar can't help but notice the cracks in the facade. Why are there so many different pairs and sizes of mountain boots at the entrance? What secret does the Gildebrant basement hold? Why does every door in the house lock automatically at midnight? Oscar simply must know, but what he will do, what he even could do, with the knowledge Gildebrant's house and mind contains, remains to be seen.

Oh shit, I almost forgot. The above isn't even the first time Oscar gotten himself into an antagonism-into-love situation. It's how he met his best frenemy, Mara. They met just after he moved from Minnesota where he grew up and went to University, and started hating each other in the most heteroerotic way possible just about right away. Oscar would belittle Mara, who in retaliation, or just because she felt like it, expose his parochial origins, mock his pretensions, or just throw shit at him. Things grew a bit messier, but much more interesting when Mara came to realize that Oscar had, and still has, a pronounced masochistic streak, and their relationship took a turn for the sexual. Hate-fucking turned into a more amicable sort of slap-and-tickle, and before they knew it, Mara and Oscar both had come to regard each others as whatever you call the overlap between friends, fuckbuddies, and rivals. Whatever you might call it, Mara and Oscar are still very close, and she provides much commentary on Oscar's ongoing descent into obsession in the earlier act of the book.

As for the status of this whole thing, the first draft is finished, but work on it is on a temporary hiatus as I do a final legibility pass on my previous work, The Clockwork Boy (which sadly contains no rivals-to-lovers at present,) but if you want to keep abreast of the developments when I start up working on HIB again, do feel free to check out my Tag List Post

[sunlightandsuffering]

Lys, what's the deal with frat boy Eren and feminist Mikasa's past? I know they met at least in high school and are neighbors, that their friendship took a turn for the worse. Did Eren take Mikasa's virginity in high school or college?

omgomg, okay this is getting added to my drabble doc lol, so don't be alarmed if I copy and paste this and ur ask appears again on another post lol!!! But honestly I think I have to figure them out, I really like them being like chilhood friends first, like it jsut adds a fun extra layer to their dynamic! Bc they can drive back home from school together and u have their moms conspiring to get them together and Mikasa is like I HATE HIM!! And u know they do Christmas Eve together and shit lmfaoooo and it causes MUCH chaos !!! BUT i think i wrote a drabble that sort of explains it already, don't know where it went tho lmfao.

But basically, at some point in high school, Mikasa goes Feminist Ultra TM and it becomes part of her personality, and Eren is all for it at first. AND THEN, it begins bc men are awful and Eren is like hOW AM I SUPPOSED TO COMPETE WITH THIS!?!?!? Bc all of Mikasa's friends start getting boyfriends and as occurs in high school relationships, drama ensues and jealousy and it all just poisons Mikasa against men further. And there is Eren, her best friend, 'only man she trusts' AND HE'S BASICALLY BEEN COCK BLOCKED MY FEMINISM!!! She's like I'm never dating, ew men. And Eren is sitting there like 😦😧🧍🏻 I AM A MAN??? I found the drabble tho i'll paste it at the bottom and u can sort of see what I'm going for? Idk if it makes sense tho lol!! Essentially tho, Eren is kind of hopeless bc Mikasa is always hating on men, and he's like a little kid, any attention is good attention, even if it's bad. And so he become MENINIST EREN !! Just bc it gets a rise out of her, and at the very least, she's looking at him now as more than just her wholesome best friend who doesn't count as a man lmfao.

As for the virginity part, as much as I'd love for it to be in high school and have them like have a more solid history, I think it happens in college purely bc that's just where their relationship really sparks ! But idk i gotta get my thoughts together before I write a HARDCORE drabble for them, this was just me spitballing i think

It’s not that Eren hates women. He doesn’t, he really doesn’t, he actually loves women, adores them. 

Mikasa, his childhood best friend turned enemy, well she just brings it out in him. 

He loves watching her get riled up, the fire in those beautiful silvery eyes of hers, it was intoxicating. Fighting became foreplay, and before he knew it, he was a glorified meninist, whatever the fuck that is. 

He can still remember the day it started, the tenth grade probably, Mikasa merrily stomping into class, armed with new knowledge: the wage gap, benevolent sexism, implicit gender bias. And Eren had watched, with horrified eyes as his tender spark of romance with the world’s most beautiful girl, the love of his life was crushed, lit aflame right in front of him… by fucking feminism of all things. Because how was he supposed to compete with a concept, even attempt a relationship when there were limitless facts about how awful men were? How was he supposed to compete with the faults of mankind? Thus, Mikasa didn’t date, she was waiting for a boy so perfect, that he could combat sexism itself, a feminist ally she said. 

Newsflash, they didn’t really exist, at least not in Eren’s experience, and thus, Eren became the very antithesis of everything she represented. And well, here they are. 

He’d been intrigued the first time it happened, an accident at a frat party when she was too drunk to remember much of anything at all. They’d made out a little before snuggling in his bed and Eren had slept contently for the first time in years.

He’d woken up the following morning to a scowl on her face and a hand on his dick, demanding he teach her what all the fuss was about. They’ve been enemies with benefits ever since. 

And Eren finds that despite their rabid dislike of one another, that he quite enjoys their new dynamic.

[midnight-glasses]

Thank you ♥

My request is:

TWTW

Tsukinami brothers x Yui Punishment Headcanons (poly or separate)

She tried to run away from them

Hello again dear, feel welcome! Your wish is an order~

DISCLAIMER:

I always feel compelled to issue disclaimers when I make any content that is even minimally problematic.

This is a tricky post to make, mainly because it deals with many things that can and will cause discomfort, this request came up very close to the period where I felt like writing distressing material, I think this little narrative chooses mainly focusing on Yui, Shin and Carla's emotions and inner thoughts when such situations are played against them.

Let's remind everyone that this post is not intended to be something conventional and much less to portray healthy firm relationships, this is something quite obvious, but just saying: if you are kidnapped or held against your will, do not fall in love with your captor, run and call the police.

TRIGGERS:

Degradation;

Emotional dependency;

Emotional manipulation

False imprisonment;

Implicit stockholm syndrome;

Kidnapping;

Obsession;

Physical aggression;

Possessive behavior;

Torture;

Verbal humiliation;

Unhealthy mindset;

Unhealthy relationship;

Collective punishments:

“Your attempts to escape us are futile. We will always find you and bring you back! Your affront has earned you a punishment that will not only teach you a lesson, but also remind you of your place in this world.”

Carla and Shin are extremely displeased when they find out that Yui has tried to run away from them. They see this as a betrayal of their trust and an insult to their authority.

They track Yui down and bring her back to the mansion. Yui is punished for her disobedience and made to understand the consequences of her actions,

Shin suggests locking her in a cell, a suggestion that Carla supports.

The brothers often work in tandem, using both physical and psychological torture to wear Yui down. They take turns punishing her, each bringing their own unique style to the table.

Carla is especially cruel, using his knowledge to prolong Yui's suffering. He relishes in her pain and often takes pleasure in watching her squirm.

Yui is tied up and blindfolded as they punish her, they take turns striking her with a whip, causing her pain and leaving bruises on her skin.

They tell her that she will never escape from them and that she belongs to them now.

Shin, while not as sadistic as Carla, is no less cruel. He knows how to push Yui's buttons and often uses her insecurities against her in order to break her down.

Carla is more sadistic and enjoys prolonging the agony of his victims, while Shin is more hotheaded and prefers to attack directly.

The brothers continue to monitor Yui closely, making sure that she doesn't try to run away again.

They keep her under constant surveillance and remind her of her place in their world.

However, the brothers are not satisfied with just breaking Yui's will. They want to make sure she never tries to escape again, to do this, they devise a plan to make her completely dependent on them.

The brothers continue to punish Yui whenever she disobeys them, but they also reward her for good behavior.

They use a system of rewards and punishments to shape her behavior and to reinforce their control over her.

As the punishment continues, Yui's resistance begins to wane, she becomes more compliant and submissive, giving in to the brothers' demands.

The Tsukinami brothers use this to their advantage, manipulating her emotions to keep her under their control.

Using various mind-altering techniques, the brothers convince Yui that she needs them to survive.

They make her believe that she cannot function without them and that they are the only ones who can protect her.

Carla's Punishments:

“You have disobeyed me, and for that, you shall face the consequences. Do not mistake my calm demeanor for weakness, for I am fully capable of delivering punishment that will leave a lasting impression...”

Carla initially starts punishing Yui by making her kneel before he for hours while he lectures her about her disobedience and the consequences of running away.

After that, Carla humiliates Yui by making her perform degrading acts.

Carla begins the real punishment by isolating her in a dark and cold room with no food for days.

He wants her to experience the agony of hunger, Carla is not interested in killing Yui, but he wants to make her suffer, he tries to make her believe that she is responsible for this.

Carla forces Yui to watch as he destroys a beloved possession of hers, relishing in the despair and helplessness she feels as she begs him to stop.

He uses his intelligence and manipulation skills to trick Yui into believing that he is the only one who can save her from the other vampires.

Carla convinces her that he is her only hope and that she must submit to him completely. Once he has her under his control, he takes pleasure in breaking her spirit and forcing her to obey his every command.

He enjoys playing mind games with Yui, using her fear and confusion to his advantage. He takes pleasure in seeing her struggle and suffer, and often draws out her punishments for as long as possible in order to prolong her agony.

Carla's punishments often involve a mix of physical and emotional torture. He will beat Yui mercilessly one minute, then shower her with false kindness and affection the next.

This emotional whiplash is designed to keep her off balance and prevent her from ever feeling safe or secure.

Sometimes, he employs sensory deprivation to disorient and weaken Yui.

Carla strips Yui of her identity and sense of self, leaving her a shell of her former self.

He tries to completely break her, leaving Yui in a state of complete despair and hopelessness.

Despite his sadism, Carla struggles with feelings of guilt and remorse for what he is doing to Yui.

He knows that his actions are wrong, but he can't help himself. He tries to convince himself that it is all for the good of his race, but deep down he knows that he is just a cruel and selfish monster.

Carla's ultimate goal is to mate with Yui and restore his race, but he is also aware that this desire is rooted in his own personal pride and need for power.

He struggles with conflicting emotions, wanting to control Yui completely but also wanting her to willingly submit to him.

His punishments are a reflection of this internal struggle, as he alternates between cruelty and tenderness in his treatment of her.

Shin's Punishments:

“Hehehe... Your attempts to run away only make me want to break you even more until you realize that you are mine and mine alone!”

When Yui tries to run away from Shin, he feels a mix of anger and disappointment, as he sees it as a betrayal of her loyalty and submission to him.

He will usually catch Yui quickly due to his founder speed and strength, and once he does, he'll roughly grab her by the arm and drag her back to the mansion.

Shin punishes Yui by taking away her freedom of movement and making her stay in a small, cramped space for an extended period of time.

He wants her to understand the consequences of her actions and learn to fear him.

Shin will occasionally visit Yui in her “cell” to remind her of her place and to instill fear in her. He'll often threaten her with violence or humiliation to make sure she doesn't try to escape again.

Sometimes Shin might pretend to forgive Yui and treat her kindly for a short while, only to turn on her suddenly and punish her even more severely than before. He wants to keep her off balance and unsure of what he'll do next.

He might also use Yui's punishment as a way to prove his superiority to his brother. He'll brag to Carla about how he's able to keep Yui under control and how he's more capable than his brother.

Shin will rarely show mercy, although he tends to show more mercy than his brother. He sees any attempt to resist or disobey him as a challenge to his authority and will punish her accordingly.

Despite his cruelty towards Yui, Shin might also feel conflicted about his actions. He might struggle with feelings of guilt or shame, but he'll never let Yui see this side of him.

Shin might also experience jealousy towards Yui, especially if he sees her talking to another men — his brother — or showing interest in someone else. He sees her as his possession and doesn't want anyone else to have her.

Shin might start to become possessive and controlling over Yui's every move, monitoring her closely and punishing her for even the slightest mistake or misstep.

As time goes on, Shin might become more paranoid about Yui leaving him, to the point where he keeps her locked up and isolated from the outside world. He doesn't want to risk losing his possession and feeling the humiliation of being abandoned.

Even though Shin punishes Yui harshly, deep down, he still cares for her in his own twisted way. He wants her to understand that he is in control and that she cannot escape from him. He believes that he is doing what is best for their race, and he wants Yui to accept her role as his mate and the future queen of the First Bloods.

There are moments when Shin shows his vulnerable side to her. He opens up about his insecurities and fears, revealing a side of him that no one else has seen. These moments are rare, but they give Yui a glimpse of the real Shin beneath his sadistic exterior.

Regarding the fanfiction request you made from Carlayui a few months ago, I would like to inform you that I am still in the process of writing it. Despite encountering some difficulties working with the character, dealing with my creative block, and not having played the other games he is featured in yet, I am currently rereading some of his Dark Fate route in order to gain a better sense of direction for the story! Your request is receiving my attention.

[aita-blorbos]

AITA for manipulating the neighborhood rich kid into giving my mother financial support?

[vague fanfiction concept]

I (A, 11M) am a Pokemon Trainer. My rival (G, 11M) belongs to the local professor's family. I have held a grudge to said family from a very young age, as despite their resources, they have done little to help my single mother. They have shown me that this world cares little for the morals I value, only power and merit - we have to do anything we can for our loved ones no matter who else is harmed.

G's father recently passed away, and I befriended him in this trying time to give him support under false pretenses. I made him feel indebted to me, and I made him feel as though the best way to make it up to me was to give my mother support behind the professor's back.

Eventually, G grew wise to my true nature and confronted me on our false friendship. I, however, simply stated that his family made me what I am, so he has no moral high ground. At least I'm pragmatic enough to be kind. Between that and an implicit threat - the knowledge that I have killed without leaving a trace - I got him to keep up his clandestine support.

My starter doesn't seem to approve of this, but not enough to interfere - he usually holds me back, but not here. AITA?

[bigskydreaming]

BUT! When I am back to my usual, Batfam followers remind me to make the following post because I WILL forget, since I’ve been meaning to for like three weeks and have forgotten and remembered all over again at least seven times and there’s no guarantee I’ll remember on my own the next cycle of Forgetting, oh Inexplicable Me....

The post:

I truly do not have a problem w/peoples’ interpretation of Bruce focusing him on being deliberately and intentionally aware of social and economic conditions throughout Gotham and trying his best to apply his wealth and resources to addressing inequities. Of course this makes for a much more nuanced take on him than ‘how much could one banana possibly cost, ten dollars’. BUT where you lose me is when you try and insist on him being MORE aware of these things than literally any of his kids, all of whom have varying degrees of life experience with being on the ‘being punched down on’ side of various social and economic realities and injustices. Its all relative but he categorically should not be portrayed as more in tune with the harsher realities of life outside his own experiences than his various kids who have LIVED some of these experiences. And no, I do not think this is a harmless headcanon or character preference in the LONG run, because I think intentionally or not, it feeds directly into societal norms of trusting the word and advice of wealthy people talking about these things more than the words and experiences of those who have actually lived them firsthand. We have a very big problem in our society of automatically turning our attention to the most advantaged among us as though the implicit takeaway is obviously they’ve only reached their level of advantage and resource management through good choices, knowledge and expertly honed opinions rather than as a symptom of privilege and innately possessing capital and resources, and I do think it only feeds into that to try and position a born billionaire as more in tune with the harsh realities of life without privilege or advantages over the members of his family with direct practical knowledge of these things. Bruce should not be the taking the lead on ‘what life is like for addicts, those dependent on addicts, harm reduction, etc’ when Jason is right there. He should not be the foremost authority on growing up with abusive parents and expectations when hello, his daughter is Cassandra Cain. He should not be more aware of the stressors of poverty and life on a budget when his eldest son grew up in a traveling circus. He should not be the go-to in stories about the problems with the foster care system when Duke was in the system for five years. His views on the League of Assassins should not constantly supersede those of the son who was raised in said League. Etc, etc. Its one thing for Bruce to be An Expert in Everything He’s Ever Tried when it comes to learned skillsets, but its another thing when his expertise is extended to things he has no actual experience with to such an extent that he’s looked to BEFORE the members of his family that do. In this essay I will - 

[lustrexia]

Maybe you’re not educated on the topic.. I’m a queer black man so this topic hits home.The big black c*ck stereotype is harmful for the African American community. Maybe people who aren’t black don’t see an issue with it, But for the group, it has a history of making us (black men) seem less intelligent, less sophisticated...just animalistic sexual prey. People especially writers should actively work to stop this stereotype so that casual racism, implicit racism can stop. Please take that post down or delete BBC from it. That is very very harmful to my community… thank you.

Hi, listen, I’m sorry for that part of the Jude smut, I’m going to edit the post so it’s just a size kink thing! 🤍

I didn’t intend to offend anyone or any community in particular and I’m sorry that I did so in the process of writing smut about a POC man, I’m just Argentinian and here as you may or may not know (with the whole Enzo Fernandez and the French NT thing) we don’t have roots of racial sensitivity, we’re more of a we will use anything against anyone type of country and that’s why we end up globally uneducated about ethnic minorities/issues. I am a mixed person, my mom is POC, and I should’ve known better than use an offensive term to describe a black man.

Here in my country it’s treated more of a silly thing that we don’t use against black people, we don’t objectify them in that way with the term in this country, like in the states or maybe in Europe, that’s why I didn’t have the knowledge of how sensitive/offensive the term “BBC” can be for the black community, because we don’t take it that way here, it’s a cultural difference, here BBC doesn’t have the backstory or past that it has in other places.

I didn’t know that the term had historical roots in racism or anything, I apologize and I’m grateful for you to take the time of educating me even when it’s not your obligation or responsibility to do so!

I apologize again, and I’m going to stick to writing smut, this is the last statement of this kind that I will post 🩷.