#for the sake of brevity

[yves-and-scessernee]

I've been thinking about some things, and I wanted to clarify for some folks outside of the US:

When people in the United States talk about heritage, it's always with the implication of American nationality. Two friends in the US might chat casually about themselves and their families by saying "I'm Irish" and "I'm Polish." What they mean is "I'm Irish-American" and "I'm Polish-American" but, because the context of being in America is present, the "-American" part goes assumed.

That's why the "Where are you from?" / "Where were you born?" / "Where are your parents from?" questions exist. Between friends, those are casual ways to tell if someone is talking about X as a familial heritage or X as a nationality without saying outright "Hey, so are you a member of this American subculture or are you from another country?" It is absolutely rude to ask these questions without the context of friendship, but within a friendship people often share information about their heritage and nationality quite freely. Those two friends I mentioned above might go on to talk about how "My grandparents were born in Dublin and immigrated to the US, and my parents grew up together in Boston." "Oh, that's cool that they grew up together! My great-grandmother moved from Kraków as an infant with her family, but my dad met my mom through an exchange student program and she just finalized her dual citizenship."

Stripped of the context of "being in America", such statements can come off as presumptuous and deceptive. I understand that. Someone who has gotten used to chatting about their family while in America will likely default to keeping the "-American" part assumed on their behalf, which they shouldn't do. But an American saying "Oh! I'm Irish" to you when you know already that they are American is telling you this in the context of being American: what is actually being conveyed is "I'm Irish-American." To them, they're sharing what American subculture they belong to, rather than claiming participation in a different country.

And Irish-American culture in the US is alive and well! Irish-American cultural centers, museums dedicated to generations of Irish-American immigration, and festivals sharing what Irish-American families have brought to America are found all over the US. So it is with many other cultural communities. People care about the cultures they and their families brought over with them, and American subcultures are living entities unto themselves shaped by decades of history.

And of course some American families keep in touch with their parent cultures. As I write this, a friend is making arrangements with his family to spent next month with his grandparents in Mexico. My own parents just got back from visiting my sister in Ireland, where she's been studying veterinary sciences. Sometimes that's why Americans drop the hyphen in casual conversation: for my friend, where does Mexican culture end and the Mexican-American subculture within the greater American culture begin? A conversation with him actually got me thinking about this entire thing, because, for him, the distinction between being Mexican, having Mexican heritage, and being Mexican-American can be really blurry, particularly given the United States' history with Mexico.

Americans should stop assuming everyone knows the context of "having American nationality" when they talk about heritage. I agree. It can be easy to come onto the internet with the same assumptions you have in your everyday community, particularly if you're young. If you're American and you're reading this and you're just realizing that someone probably interpreted you as saying "I'm a member of this country" when what you meant was "I'm a member of this American subculture," I understand the embarrassment. This often isn't laid out clearly inside or outside the US.

But that's why I'm explaining it now. If what you mean is "I'm [Heritage]-American" and you're talking about your participation in an American subculture, you probably should start saying the whole phrase aloud. It's more polite to assume that someone doesn't know your nationality than that they do. It'll forestall misunderstandings and frustrations with friends and strangers alike.

[bigfatbreak]

Does Chloe tone down her direct bullying/harassment of Marinette after that day to just the dead mom jokes out of guilt, or is it more that Marinette now being homeschooled means Chloe just lost access? Also, does Lila try the whole lying/sabotaging thing on Marinette and just fail or does Marinette just not care?

Lila has no reason to sabotage Marinette because Marinette isn't threatening her little empire she wants to build. In fact, she really wants Marinette on her side BECAUSE she's not apart of the school, so she doesn't need to keep up an elaborate web of lies! She can just try to befriend a talented girl who makes AMAZING food and try to get freebies~

meanwhile, with Chloe, things got really complicated after the pool incident...

Tom was not in the mood to put up with this crap.

[starryluminary]

If Noco were a canon couple’s stereotypes: The Arch Villain and The Queen Bee Schemer

[charminglyantiquated]

✨birthday playlist!✨

it's october! if you're so inclined, please tell me one song you love - every year I make a playlist of all of them and it gets me through the winter. there's always something really special to me about knowing each song on there is important to someone else, and I've found some of my favorite artists through it. thank you thank you thank you!!

(like previous years, I'll make the playlist available on youtube and spotify when it's done!)

[57sfinest]

theoretical entroponetics: the post

okay. LONG post incoming. i have summarized all available information on the pale, separated into confirmed objective truth & in-canon speculation that may or may not be true, and then appended my own very detailed theory on the pale! this post is meant as a resource; please feel free to add things of your own in replies/reblogs (please tag me if you do!) or point out any errors i may have made. you’re welcome to use any of my personal theory in your own work but please credit me if you do!! (and tag me in that/send it to me, i really want to see what you do with it!)

Here’s what we *know* about the pale, according to in-game and concept art: 

It erases data, at least the kind stored on radiocomputer filament and magnetic tapes.

It has no dimensions of its own- pale latitude compressors serve to force dimensions on raw pale and allow navigation. 

The pale is referred to in the context of entropy

It arrived with mankind, but not immediately- there are 8000 years of written history, but the pale was first recorded 6000 years ago, implying that pale either didn’t start forming immediately or that it was so insignificant/distant that it went unnoticed for 2000 years. 

There exists a group of people who are actively trying to expedite entroponetic collapse; the ideology is called entropolism

To this point, pale isn’t immediately visible. Pale has molecular structure, but manifests as a waveform, and only becomes visible at a certain distance from the origin, once wave frequency is sufficiently high. 

During pale exposure, people experience “sense objects”: visual or auditory hallucinations and/or vivid physical recollections of memories. These hallucinations may originate from their own consciousness or someone else’s. c

People require physical and mental examinations before interisolary travel and are allotted a certain number of days per year as their pale exposure threshold. 

Overexposure results in a pale “addiction”- these individuals crave pale exposure, and it’s unclear if this addiction can ever be broken. It’s also unclear whether there is a point at which pale exposure becomes lethal, but given that it dissolves matter, we can be fairly certain that a given length of continuous exposure will kill. 

Radio signals, cold plasma torches and anodic sound are all used to manage the pale to permit travel through it. Plasma torches destabilize the molecular structure of the pale to create gaps, anodic sound widens and maintains these gaps, and radio signals rationalize the pale into recognizable dimensions.

Radio signals are, in return, susceptible to corruption by the pale, resulting in entroponetic crosstalk, where signals from the past or the future are transmitted to the present. CCP is one such phenomenon and is directly related to the formation of new pale through magpie interpretation.

There is a dedicated Union for people who work in and with the pale (the Pale Workers Union). They have two slogans; “The light purifies; The sound absolves; The pale no more” and “Son et Fureur” (sound and fury)

Here’s what we may choose to believe about the pale, based on the thoughts and beliefs of in-game characters:

In conversation with Soona, the pale is described as a “curdling milk” phenomenon: “repulsive, but natural”

In this same conversation you can theorize that the churches were meant to contain the pale origins; out of the seven churches, six were destroyed during the suzerain or the revolution

The phasmid and whatever other lifeforms it’s communicated with believe that entroponetic collapse is comparable to an oxygen holocaust (i.e. the great oxygenation event), implying mass extinction due to a toxic overabundance of sapient thought

Harry refers to it once by saying “The wolf is at the door. It’s going to eat the sun.” so take that as you will

It’s likely that Tiago’s “Mother” is some manifestation from the pale, if you choose to believe that the 2mm hole is in fact a pale origin point (the concept art does confirm it’s a pale origin, but the game offers other explanations, so I won’t say it’s the only answer)

Inframaterialists believe that revolutionary action (NOT thought) may create a counter-force that will prevent the spread of pale; it’s unclear if any reversal is possible.

The world will be fully consumed by the pale in 27 years (I put it here because you may or may not believe that shivers and harry are reliably sourcing this information)

And now my personal speculation about the pale:

A quick and easy point: it’s confirmed that the pale has a measurable EMF “exhalation” frequency that varies with proximity. Strong enough EMF pulses can actually tamper with magnetic storage- radiocomputer filaments! Electronics! Fortress Accident data loss! This gives us a tangible explanation for why pale can delete data :)

This may also explain its ability to cause radio interference- radio frequencies are just a subset of EMF frequencies, so it’s possible that pale exhalation on *just the right frequency* is what’s responsible for the entroponetic crosstalk we get on radios sometimes

The pale canonically has an atomic structure, but it also has wave properties, so it’s possible that the pale has wave-particle duality on its subatomic level, like photons do

Based on this, entroponetics is likely a very similar field to quantum mechanics, which might be an interesting source of ideas for anyone (like me) who wants to explore pale-related possibilities

The pale could be a manifestation of raw patterns. That’s why math “forces dimensions” on it- it rationalizes or “tames” the patterns, which allows it to be manipulated to a certain degree.

There are several references to the pale that refer to mathematical concepts and patterns, saying that the world dissolves into “a tangle of azimuths and cosines” as it blends into the interisolary pale- more on this later

Steban comments that the pale is commonly theorized to be nostalgia or “historical inertia”, but it’s largely agreed that it’s “the past” in a broad sense. Thinking about the idiom that history repeats itself, it could be that history/the past is part of the pattern that comprises the pale, and that it’s also the type of pattern most readily perceived by people (people don’t viscerally *perceive* math, for example, but we experience memories)

To first define entropy: Chemically speaking, “the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. (per encyclopedia britannica).” Physically speaking, it’s a measure of randomness or disorder in a system. Less work/less order = more entropy; it’s a physicochemical “winding down” of a given system

It’s commonly thought that pale is the entropic force, but what if it’s the opposite? (Keep in mind the chemical definition: less ability to do work = more entropy) Consider: the pale as less entropic, a cleanup force, recycling the potential lost by death and destruction in the universe. This in part explains why a dead person’s memory is present in the pale- their potential has been recycled into the pale in the form of their memories (their life’s *pattern*)

Enthalpy is a related concept to entropy and is defined as the total energy contained within a system. Holding the system enthalpy constant- saying the universe will always have the same amount of total energy, no matter what, according to thermodynamics- results in an entropic tug-of-war between the pale and the world. The pale wins through sheer inertia (again, inertia is mentioned specifically in game)

Overall: think of the world as “cooling”, losing heat and energy through war and death and complacency. Think of the pale as steam and heat, melting down old materials to start it all over again. (Kim says, *through entroponetic interference*: “it’s been a long, cold winter.”)

Consider: the pale as a sinusoidal function, eternally repeating. The pale recycling the universe to start a new cycle, “spending” itself, resulting in pale not being present in the beginning. Then, as the new things begin to settle- with the advent of the human mind, specifically- the pale reforming, slowly reclaiming potential, eventually ending the cycle to start again.

In comes CCP and magpies. Consider: CCP as a backwards transmission from the next “cycle” (after all, pale has no sense of time). Magpies as *pattern-sensitive* people who are able to decode CCP into something useful called novelty. They reach into the potential of the next cycle to build the potential in their current one- this paradox could be what creates more pale, because (and this is where it gets weird, I apologize) doing this retroactively increases the total amount of energy/work/potential in the current cycle to have been reclaimed by the pale for the next one.

Think of the pale as the compost bin for every single thought in the universe. The pale is the exact right size to compost every little atom and thought in the universe, and can hold nothing extra. But magpies reach into the future, the next cycle, and bring in extra. This paradox forces the pale to grow to accommodate the additional material, which also increases the starting potential of the next cycle. This process allows each cycle to accumulate minor changes from the previous one, which can snowball over many cycles.

Furthermore, to the inframaterialists’ point: revolutionary action would be such a radical shift in inertia that it would increase the potential in the world, forcing the pale to pause/shrink to “balance the equation” in terms of pale-vs-world thermodynamics. So maybe they’re right after all :)

And some diagramming, to explain the utter bullshit I’ve just dropped:

[inaconstantstateofchange]

neither a friendly reminder nor an unfriendly reminder but a secret third thing:

a heartfelt plea to all my fellow fans, but especially bg3 fans, and especially especially those who might be relatively new to fandom as a concept.

please treat your fellow fans as fellow fans.

i don't care how big of a blog they have, how incredible you think their writing is, their art is, their edits or their meta or what-have-you are. the moment you designate them as a "content creator" in your mind, the moment you place them higher than you in some horrible, made-up fandom hierarchy, you've lost. we've all lost.

the social contract of fandom is equality. it's community. we're all neighbors bringing dishes to each other's potlucks and sharing notes and encouraging each other.

i know it probably feels like venerating them is doing them a favor, is showing them how incredible they are to you, but it's not. it's putting them on a pedestal that precludes them from actually participating in the community that makes us thrive.

[lemonhemlock]

tried watching the new queen charlotte series but was immediately put off by the ridiculous anti-corset propaganda, so get ready for another rant.

first of all, this is the georgian era so what she's wearing are called /stays/ - corsets are a victorian invention. why do we still not know this in 2023 when period productions have remained consistently popular throughout the years? the concept of tighlacing (the goal being a reduction of the waist) is also victorian and was not the norm at all and v much an extreme practice. this understanding of history is so superficial, it's as if an alien were to open up People magazine and conclude that all human women resort to butt injections and lip fillers to stay with the fashion of the times. also, no, you cannot tighlace in stays to obtain a waist reduction because they are shaped like a funnel (picture 1 = long stays, 2 = short regency stays, 3 = corset)

charlotte goes on to complain about how dangerous whalebone is and that it might kill her if she makes the wrong move. what the actual fuck? whalebone was actually the very best material to use for this because it was sturdy yet flexible and allowed the /stays/ to completely and comfortably mold around a woman's unique body shape. one of the reasons why today it is v difficult to replicate the same effect in corsetry is because we do not have access to whalebone (killing whales is not cool for obvious reasons) so corset-makers have to resort to other materials like plastic or metal, which CAN break. whereas whalebone doesn't really break as easily. furthermore, stays/corsets were NEVER worn on bare skin, but with a chemise/shift underneath.

why did women in the past resort to this type of undergarment, you ask? well, apart from the fact that women need bust support, the stays also serve the purpose of allowing all the many skirts and petticoats to be placed comfortably onto the waist. you try piling on that much fabric around your bare waist and see how you like it and if you can even carry it all around without it cutting into your stomach.

clothes throughout human history did cater to the popular fashions of the time, yes, but they also reflected the technological limitations and there was thus a practical aspect to it. this is a time before elastic bands, before industrialization and fast fashion, clothes are v difficult to make, everything is done by hand, so a lot of care is put into preserving them, because they are /expensive/ and labour intensive. you don't want your fancy outergarments to get ruined so you wear a lot of undergarments to absorb your bodily fluids since those are easier to make and don't have to look "pretty", can be stained and patchy etc. again, why do you need so many layers in the first place? because this is a time before comfortable heating, with poorly isolated and drafty houses, and it's bloody cold otherwise.

the third reason why that monologue was so dumb is because CHARLOTTE is the reason regency court dress was so preposterous. long story short, in a few decades, the fashionable silhouette changes wildly from the late 1700s to the 1810s.

the regency waistline was much higher and the gowns were much more flowy and unstructured than the late georgian ones (what's commonly known as the empire waistline). the long stays of the late 1700s were now replaced with short stays that really were similar to modern bras. the scene in the first season of bridgerton where they squeeze penelope's sister into what looks like a pair of long stays (?) is bonkers bc no one would wear a waist-constricting boned undergarment under a regency dress. why would they? the natural waist is not even emphasized in any way. this is just another reason to peddle the women-were-oppressed-by-their-lingerie agenda. so if charlotte really hated long stays that much, regency would really have been her time to shine, right? wrong. the woman loved the fashions of her youth so much she forced everyone who came to court to still comply to them, which is why we get the absolutely atrocious regency court dresses - essentially a combination of the georgian style with side panniers, but with an empire waistline.

yeah, this is how daphne SHOULD have looked like when she was presented at court in front of charlotte. i can understand why the showrunners decided to just leave her in a regency silhouette because this is ugly af. but, anyway, queen charlotte is the last person on earth to be complaining about how uncomfortable stays are.

creative licence aside, the reason this pisses me off is because it is SUCH lazy storytelling. the show wants us to know charlotte is a spunky pseudo-feminist character so the easiest way to do that is to have her complain about the evil 'corset' trying to kill her. it is so profoundly ahistorical and does nothing to contribute to the conversation about women's true problems and true limitations during that time. instead of genuinely exploring social history and women's actual lived experiences, we are STILL, in the year of our lord 2023, diverting the discourse towards fabricated issues that never existed in the first place.

the reasons actresses complain about boned underwear in interviews are manifold. costume designers are very overworked, they have to produce clothes for hundreds of people in a very short time, so they simply do not have the time or resources to construct corsets/stays that fit the actresses like they are supposed to. in the past, these garments were made individually for every person and completely to their own requirements. they also make these actresses wear the boning on BARE skin to look extra sexy to the audience or to emphasize their oppression - that never happened, a shift was always worn underneath (hello dakota fanning scene in the alienist??).

moreover, they lace them up until they constrict their ribcages - these women are already super thin and their bodies cannot support more reduction - instead of relying on the historical practices of padding and illusion. nowadays, body parts are what's fashionable - that's why so many resort to fat transfers or breast implants or starving themselves to achieve a flat stomach. in the past, anyone of any size could have accomplished the fashionable silhouette because they had a wide array of accouterments to plop underneath their garments - panniers, bustles, hoop skirts, padding of any sort. it didn't matter how big your waist was, you just padded other areas until you achieved the desired shape. fat women wore corsets/stays, too. working women, who did a lot of physical labour, did the same. how were they able to perform all of their tasks if they were incapable of moving or breathing? even today, people wear medical corsets all the time.

TLDR the media's obsession with portraying modern women as so liberated because they wear bras instead of "patriarchal" underwear is so tedious.

EDIT: Some very basic chronological tadpoles to make this easier to place within historical context. "Georgian" is used to denote the 18th+ century when Great Britain was ruled by several kings named George, so roughly 1714-1830. Within this interval, we refer to the Regency period as encompassing the regency of Prince George, future King George IV, when his father George III was incapacitated by mental illness. The official political regency took place during 1811-1820, but culturally speaking, this was extended to roughly the end of the 18th century up to maybe 1830 or 1837. This is the time period of Napoleonic wars and Jane Austen novels, so all her heroines should normally wear Regency styles. Think "empire waistline" as in Imperial France and Napoleon. The Victorian era (and its corsets) follows throughout the rest of the 19th century. Queen Charlotte was a contemporary of Marie Antoinette's, so they should be dressed in similar fashions (robe à la française vs robe à la anglais).

[pondslime]

an american werewolf in london x text posts (part 1/?)

[wallywest]

most of these are approximately a year old but. hey better late than never right

[magniloquent-raven]

that's GROWTH babey

[torchickentacos]

Legends Arceus is such a good game if you try to play it from a character's POV. I personally do it with most pokemon games because it's just a thing I've done since I was like seven I think BUT it just adds FLAVOR. Blorboify your experience.

Like. OK. Say you play as Akari but HC her as Dawn being isekai'd, partial memory wipe maybe if that's your jam. Does she choose Oshawott because it reminds her of Piplup at home, wherever home may be? Does she hear about Almighty Sinnoh and vaguely recall something about adventures with friends, something so close that she just can't quite grasp onto? Does she feel this... unease around Cyllene, even though she knows Cyllene has done nothing but be helpful and stand up for her so far?

Currently in my playthrough, Playing as Drew and having this immense adverse gut reaction to Melli? Frowning at Akari, knowing she seems familiar from... somewhere, assuming Drew and Dawn have crossed paths coordinating. Or him seeing Irida's red headbandy thing and short bobbed hair, and feeling this jolt of familiarity that he feels like he should know like the back of his hand? Picking wildflowers in Cobalt Coastlands, trying to grasp onto fleeting memories of flowers and conversations on far-off beaches?

A funnier option: Playing as Ash, being surrounded by people you vaguely swear you know one way or another but having to deal with the fact that to them you're just some guy that fell out of the sky?

Possibly the funniest: Playing as Iris/Cilan/whoever in Unova and seeing Ingo like HEY WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE

[power-chords]

Logs on three hours later to blog about The Zone of Interest: I can’t expect viewers to pick up on cultural forms of representation they have no cause to even recognize (at least here in American English departments you still get Hellenism as the default). But I saw these reactions to the ending that were just like… oh, man. Like if there is one thing I could stress to anybody who watches the film and feels conflicted about that decision, or confused about the attitude of it, it’s to try to keep in mind the centrality of archiving in the Jewish consciousness. Telling/re-telling (inscribing/re-inscribing, producing/reproducing) as explicit meta-commentary — where you are being constantly reminded of the text’s own structuring and framework, its (re-)generation and interpretation across a living historical continuum — if there were an essential “mode” to Jewish narrative, that would probably be it. I think this is being lost on a lot of people. It’s also why reactionaries hate critical theory.

[cloverwood]

poll bc i keep thinking about this

(sorry i should say this INCLUDES bones, fossils and other animal remains!)

Oh and if you're comfortable, please tell me why in the replies or tags! Reblog for reach if you'd like!

I've noticed quite a few therians, both irl and online collect taxidermy, especially that of their kintype (myself included) and I found it really interesting. As you would think it would be counter intuitive or strange to have dead bits of your own species but I've found most seem to enjoy it for one reason or another.

I non-human-animals have a very different perspective on death than humans do so I'm wondering if that might have something to do with it. As it seems like for us, it brings us a sense of comfort or closeness to our animals selves, rather than being something dark or macarbe. But if you have other reasons i would LOVE to know also!