#functional language

[mochasucculent]

Was looking at refs and since Viktor has two different leg braces I was wondering, do we think he wears them simultaneously?? The refs don't perfectly line up perspective-wise so it's hard to tell but parts of the one he wears during the Hexcore scenes look like they could maybe line up with the brace that he wears over his clothes, but also some parts really don't and look like they'd be super uncomfy. Also HOW does he take these on and off. Experts weigh in

[lilybug-02]

oh no.

Bug Fact: American Sign Language for "bug/insect" is made by signing the number "3" , placing your thumb to your nose, and bending your index and middle fingers twice. Pictured Below!

V2 First || Prev // Next

Volume 2 Masterpost

▴♥︎▴ Patreon ▴♥︎▴ Buy Me A Coffee ▴♥︎▴

[sparrowlucero]

Reading comprehension site. As far as I understand it, your point is moreso that often stories set in a world without homophobia, transportation, etc. Are treated as morally better. Meanwhile stories which are parallel to real world queerness, identity, and oppression are often viewed negatively. Mostly because there's a standing idea of "you could have made it better by simply not including the homophobia and transphobia".

In my mind, both are morally equivalent, and both are examining themes which may be interesting in the context of queer experiences and liberation.

yeah that's exactly what I'm talking about... I'm basically just arguing against that more extreme mindset you sometimes see around queernorm stuff and pointing out that maybe it's not great to implicitly lump stuff like, say, steven universe, queer as folk, and i saw the tv glow together as the 'lesser' or "more harmful" type of work we should seek to avoid because they focus on queer struggles, or otherwise downplaying the value of themes that aren't like, escapist enough in some way.

Honestly I think at some point the discussion around depictions of homophobia- specifically, criticism aimed at the thought that (often quite fetishistic) homophobia (or sexism, racism, etc) needed to exist in fantasy for the sake of "historical realism", and of bury your gays-type stuff - sort of got telephone game'd into "it's weird to depict bigotry or gay characters suffering/dying when you could just not do that; no one wants to see that" and then in turn "the best, most valuable and desired way to depict queerness (race, disability, gender, etc) is to make it normal and as downplayed as possible" and i think it's worth pointing out that that's often not great advice/a good metric for judging queer fiction overall.

[benevolenterrancy]

au where Li Yu teaches Prince Jing modern CSL, based on @skygemspeaks's au over here because after seeing how eagerly Li Yu takes to teaching him pinyin in bk4 I think they both deserve it!

[reflectingiridescent]

The Side Job: an episode where we come full circle, and full circle has always meant Parker

So so so full of spoilers - read at your own risk.

"I don't feel things the way other people do, so I was using their feelings to look at mine. Everyone kept asking me why I was doing this, but they wouldn't let me answer. They just kept guessing why I was doing it. Always my feelings, through them. And then I thought, 'Do I even know what I want?' So I had to get away. Because I do have feelings. One a lot...anger...Because when I was younger...Anyway, now I'm strong and you're weak. So what am I going to do and why am I going to do it?"

People likely have been doing this to Parker her whole life. But let's focus on this episode. Everyone in this episode tries to understand Parker, but their understanding is informed by who they are as people (and, for those who have known Parker longer, it's informed specifically by common touchstones in their history).

With one notable exception. But before we get there, let's talk about everyone else first. The show sets this up in order of decreasing permeability of boundaries.

Sophie comes first, and while Sophie and Parker's relationship is allowed several lenses in the Leverageverse (I've written about this here), maybe more than anyone else's, I think it's significant that right before their major interaction of the episode, we are presented with Harry's struggle with boundaries with his mother. Sophie's come a long way from last season's "Everything I do is from them" line of thinking, but she's always going to feel a little responsible for Parker, Hardison, and Eliot.

And so Sophie guesses it's because Parker doesn't want to deal with well thought-out plans every once in a while and wants the adrenaline of not having everything planned out. This makes sense because this is Sophie's style of masterminding. The entire first episode of Redemption season 2 deals with this. This is not to say that Sophie has bad boundaries with Parker. Just the boundaries in their relationship are more permeable than anyone else's. This is made clear by the way that Parker ropes Sophie in (or the way that Sophie presents herself to be roped in, intutitively).

Breanna guesses it's because Parker wants to change up the way that they do cons, which is a reflection of how she has new ideas and, like her brother, is drawn towards a slightly different style of work than the rest of the crew. Breanna does bring a new energy to the crew, and it's actually that energy that helps Parker out of her rut in s1. It also challenges her.

Harry guesses it's because Parker wants to use this experience to see if it's possible to change, if change is possible in general. And like, that's Harry's entire arc on the show (he doesn't have as much material to draw from...but like yes if you were to sum it up in a sentence, that'd be it).

I think it's important to note that no one here is completely wrong. They all have pieces of the truth. That's why Parker replies, "Something like that." to each of them. Parker is in fact taking a risk (how calculated the risk is left up for our interpretation, but on Leverage, the best cons are based in truth, and we are told that over and over again), trying something new, and testing herself.

Sophie and Parker have always been able to bond over the adrenaline rush of a job and a plan made up on the fly. Parker's risks tend to be more physical, and Sophie's tend to be more emotional. But their most significant beats involve this concept. (Sophie using a rig to get Parker off the roof in exchange for the David, "Maybe that's why they call it falling in love," Parker willingly stepping back into pure theft on this specific team and letting Sophie call the shots).

The new energy Breanna brings to the team does help Parker rediscover her passion and get in touch with a different side of herself.

The parallel in Harry wondering if change is possible and Parker, Hardison, and Eliot's "we change together" is directly referenced in Harry and Parker's scene.

So who's the exception? It's Eliot. Eliot doesn't offer up anything, even a piece, of what's going on with Parker. He just holds up a mirror and affirms her choice, referencing their shared history but never once deviating from that affirmation. It's not that he isn't worried about her - he clearly is, almost as much as Sophie. He just knows what she needs.

Speaking of Sophie, let's go back to a moment with her, because it speaks volumes, especially on a rewatch.

Harry: You don't trust Parker? Sophie: With my life? Always. With her life? Usually.

It's a lovely statement, right? It speaks to the depth of their relationship and how Sophie really cares for Parker. And it's also not really what Parker needs right now.*

*It's also not something that makes Parker upset. Parker has a very good understanding of the people around her and the way that they relate to each other. As Sophie points out, she doesn't shut them out and actually makes use of this in her plan! And she also knows that this is part of the reason why not everyone can be around when everything comes down to the wire. After a long time with our families, we get used to the way they do things. It's never completely good but it's also never completely bad. It's the way it is.

Eliot, who ran red lights to stop Parker from maybe killing a guy rolling Nanas, knows what Parker needs right now. And that's someone who has her back. And also has some distance between them.

(Hardison isn't in this episode much, but it's significant that Parker's entire self-examination is prompted by him.)

And finally (because I've gone on way too long, but you all indulge me sometimes, so I'm going to keep going until I'm finished), let's talk about Parker's only other significant relationship, which is present in this episode even though the character is no longer on this mortal plane.

Like, it's Nate, right?

Nate, who also had one emotion a lot: anger. Same as Parker! Nate, whose decision to make Parker his heir was made with input from the whole team (whether or not they were aware). Nate, who trusted Parker's judgment but also backed that reasoning up by saying that she didn't get emotional. Nate, who never fully understood Parker but like so many others close to her, understood pieces of her. And that was enough.

In many ways but not all, Parker was raised by and informed by Nate. She is not Nate. She doesn't have his upbringing or his baggage. Eliot makes that crystal clear.

I feel like a broken record, but it bears repeating. Leverage is a story about Nate. It is also a story about Parker.

And Leverage: Redemption is a story about Sophie. It is also a story about Parker.

One common thread: Parker.

What Parker decides to become and do is the most important question of the Leverageverse. Always has been!

Actually, in their respective stories, Nate and Sophie both address this in episodes that are EXTREMELY THEMATICALLY SIMILAR.

Archie: I made her unique. What is she now? Nate: I have no idea what Parker is now. I doubt she knows. (Leverage, The Inside Job, 3x03)

In both episodes, the answer involves them having no idea. However, the vibe is that they're both supportive of her figuring that out for herself.

Sophie: She's been three steps ahead of you the entire time. And you gave her 30 minutes to set it up. Alexandra Bligh: To set what up? Sophie: I honestly don't know.* But it's going to be fun. (Leverage Redemption, The Grand Complication Job, 3x05)

*Okay, Sophie is a professional liar. She sort of kind of knew what Parker was doing in this situation because she was stalling so Parker would have time. It is however on theme. We know Sophie loves a theme.

Leverage ends with Parker repeating Nate's speech from the pilot, which is basically the thesis statement for the show, the explanation for what they do.

The Side Job ends with Parker answering why she does what she does. (It's also why the team does what they do, but for Parker, this is deeply, deeply tied into who she is as a person.) Redemption means being the best version of herself and helping other people, and for Parker, that's intimately linked to her doing crime. And she expresses that - in word and action - in a very Parker way.

This show is famous for treating every season finale like it's the end of the show. I deeply crave more Leverage, but if this was the last episode we ever get, it's a pretty damn good place to end.

[askvectorprime]

Where do the names "Autobot" and "Decepticon" even come from? Are there any sort of root words that go with them?

Dear Etymology Enthusiast,

This answer is complicated by language barriers that span galaxies. As Galvatron alluded to—albeit in tones I would never use—Cybertronian words can be very linguistically dense; a translation that conveyed every nuance of our equivalent for "Autobot" would take over seventeen minutes for a human to say! As such, "Autobot" and "Decepticon" are only approximations of the neocybex names of these factions.

In many universes, my faction is named for the ideals of freedom and autonomy—hence, "Autobot" is derived from the term "autonomous". Sometimes this reflects a casting off of Quintesson rule or triumph over a caste system, but in other contexts—sometimes simultaneously—it reflects a darker facet of Cybertronian history. A famous bot once said that autonomy was a gift, a spark of sentience kindled by Primus himself. That bot's name was Nova Prime, and he used that belief to justify the subjugation of hundreds of alien worlds.

The suffix translated as "-bot" encompasses ideas such as "person", "individual", "independent agent". It could be considered an adaptation of the common English-language "man", of course—you might be familiar with the Aerialmen, the Dinomen, and the Sparkamen—but "bot" conveys that it most commonly refers to mechanical lifeforms. While typically used in the names of teams and factions, occasionally an individual might be called "Dinobot" or "Dreadbot"; such sobriquets can be seen as similar to a human being carrying a family name as their first name, such as "Jackson".

As for "Decepticon"… much has been said of the phrase "you are being deceived." In many universal clusters, this is indeed the earliest origin of the term. "Decepticon" suffers to a greater degree from the imperfections of localization. In many universes, Cybertronian language uses nuances related to subject and object that fail to translate, especially when neologism is concerned; "Decepticon" principally suggests "deceptive" in English, but in its original Cybertronix, the waveform can simultaneously be read as "the deceived".

The "-con" suffix is not dissimilar to "-bot", though it carries subtly but significantly different implications. "Person" is an adequate translation, but its meaning is much broader, not being restricted to living creatures; you may know of data-cons, information storage devices commonly used in my home reality. The closest equivalent to the suffix in your language would be "entity"—or, more bluntly, "thing". As such, the translation "-con" is derived from your language's "construct", a created object or idea.

The reasoning for the use of this suffix varies across the multiverse. On versions of Cybertron where Functionism took hold, Cybertronians of lower labor castes, or with alternate modes considered fit only for use by others, were more likely to have "con" names or be assigned categories like "Constructicon", "Agricon" or "Recordicon". Conversely, in universes where the Decepticons originate as a military junta, the use of "-con" carries the suggestion of component; all Decepticons are considered to be a part of Megatron's war machine. These implications, of course, carry over to the Mini-Cons. While I am proud to count Safeguard as a friend and partner, for much of my world's history, Decepticon and Autobot alike treated his kind as "smart tools", as mere objects to be collected. Regardless, the Great War created extreme political polarization of the "-con" suffix, and nearly no self-described Autobot adopts it; even as Decepticons freely use "bot" to describe themselves, "con" is almost exclusively used by Autobots as a term of animosity.

One more suffix you may have heard of is "-tron"; here, the root is "positron"—which, before the introduction of microscope alt-modes, we simply understood to be the stuff of sparks. The Cybertron factions of realities like the G1 World and BT World draw their names from a well of indigeneity; unlike the invading, colonizing Quintessons, the Cybertrons are the true sparks of the planet and derive their name thus. The Destrons, then, are destructive sparks who oppose the planet. Naturally, "-bot" and "-con" recur in these worlds too, following similar etymological patterns.

[cyberstarlope]

I haven't watched clh yet but I have been playing ac2 for the first time so uh. that counts right?

edit: fixed the french pronoun because apparently 2 years of it in school taught me nothing

[cup-noodle]

the cruelest thing about the world is that there's so many languages and a girl can't learn all of them

[canisalbus]

In portuguese there are no neutral pronouns at all... Even objects, species and verbs have gender!

Some random examples: Tree, house, lamp, wall, clothing, capybara, walk... all female

Paper, floor, soap, dog, cat, shoe, smell... all male

This confused me a lot as a kid when in translated media the animal characters that were referred to as one gender due to the species was actually another. Some words can be slightly altered to be the opposite gender though.

.

[chiropire]

A sentiment I see sometimes, mostly in the high masking level 1 LSN autistic community, is the disdain for all labels about how impaired you are, especially the autism levels and support needs.

A lot of what I see is people saying they're bad, there's no need for them and that they have no use, that they're basically functioning labels and ableist, that we shouldn't be comparing ourselves and each other, and that they somehow don't include high masking people.

None of these things are true, they ignore the fact that often these labels are self-identifiers, and honestly, I think when having discussions on terminology like autism levels and support needs, the voices of levels 2-3 and HrSN people need to be centred. We're the people who need these terms, we're the people who often depend on them to actually communicate our needs, so when people go around saying these terms are bad without having so much as an afterthought about us it is really upsetting and hurtful.

I've seen people say we don't need the terms because we can just explain the supports we need as if it was so easy to do so. Many of us have such complex needs that trying to explain them all the time isn't possible.

[russell-crowe]

in light of the latest “real person turns out to be an actual garbage human” situation and the wave of "parasocial relationships are bad!!" takes that inevitably follow, i want to say something that might be a bit controversial: parasocial relationships with famous people can actually be amazing and incredibly valuable. :) and they are not morally bad! :)

as a wise mutual of mine who actually studied this phenomenon once put it: “parasocial relationships are common and perfectly normal. humans are wired to form attachments. it’s literally a survival mechanism. as long as it doesn’t tip into (actual) obsession, then have at it”

people are so quick to demonise parasocial relationships, treating them like some sort of intellectual crime, but they’re natural and often beneficial. most people who form these connections are perfectly capable of separating the idea they’ve created of someone from the real-life person. and honestly, these relationships can offer a lot.

yes, it sucks when someone you admire turns out to be a shit stain of a human being. but isn’t that the risk of forming any kind of connection? whether it’s with a celebrity, a fictional character, or even a real-life friend, there’s always the chance that the person won’t live up to the version you had in your head. that doesn’t mean we should shame people for caring or tell them to stop forming connections altogether.

the truth is, people are overcomplicating something that’s both natural and usually harmless. parasocial relationships aren’t inherently bad. they’re just another way we process the world and ourselves. and as long as you have the awareness to recognise that your somewhat idealised version of the celebrity is not their real life private version; go nuts man.

[arsonisticscholar]

Ok i know Shen yuan trashes on Shang qinghua a lot for his naming conventions (at least in fannon) but can we talk about the fact that irl things especially places and animals tend to be named very literally? Especially when they’re local names rather than like the species scientific name?? I’m pretty sure there’s a species of lizard that’s called the red horny lizard locally because it’s red and reproduces really quickly and quite a few US states are named from the natives very literal descriptions of some sort of land formation like “big hills” or something along those lines

And not to mention lots of old English names (and wherever the English were occupying for large amounts of time) also have very literal naming conventions like each town had a handful of first names with either a distinguishing trait or a occupation as the second name. John smith (he’s a smith) Samuel MacKinnely (he’s the son of kinnely) Tiffany River (she lives by the river)

I know that’s not animals but still yk??

And animals and plants tend to be named after either the region they’re in, a specific trait, a handful of traits, or the person that discovered them

Now I used US states and English names as the examples I actually knew bc I didn’t do research before this it’s just what I remember from when I did a while ago so I don’t know if this is just a west/east cultural difference?? Do Chinese names and places follow similar patterns or no because I’m really curious if it’s a cultural difference or if sy is just being a little bitchy when he complains about this stuff

Idk if this is misguided or not bc I don’t see many people talking about it but eh

[my-autism-adhd-blog]

Why Do Some Autistic People Need Extra Processing Time?

The Autistic Teacher

[writing2changetheworld]

Just saw someone on Tiktok say "functional freeze". I wanted to share because I love that so much more than "decision paralysis" (or "[whatever] paralysis").

[naareblogs]

I'm a bit curious

[kako-tsukumo]

Just realized in one of the video thumbnails for the walkthrough I’m watching, Eito is just wearing sunglasses. Was the solution to his fucking problem this whole time wearing fucking sunglasses