#it should not matter when it comes to their value

[perdvivly]

Not waiting for chance or fate to dictate the terms of how annoying I’m allowed to be on the internet. I am choosing to answer them all now, unasked as I am.

1) This is mildly variable depending on the amount of effort I’m willing to expend. Typically the common theme is no adulterants. No sugar, no milk, no queen of England. If I’m getting fancy with it I’ll make an effort to time the brewing duration, 3mins for a black tea, 5mins for a green tea, 7mins for a herbal tea. But honestly the sort of depression chic I’ve been serving lately has been leaving the bag in and drinking it straight, tannins be damned.

2) Mandarin. Just seems like it’d be the most useful innit. Also, relatively harder to pick up non-magically given my native Englishhood.

3) God. I try not to honestly. No, but seriously, my sleep schedule has been all sorts of out of shape recently. I should work on that. At the moment it varies wildly day to day and depends on my responsibilities the days before and after the sleep. I’ve pulled a couple of all nighters recently and it gets screwy.

4) Maybe atla? I remember really liking it when it came out but not fully understanding the whole plot because I didn’t see it serialised until later. Maybe the simpsons? There’s something to say here about the earnestness of the earlier seasons and seeing a deeply dysfunctional family care about each other in ways they struggle to express—that gets glossed out as the production value rises in the later seasons—that’s like heroin to someone trapped in an irony poisoned world. But maybe that’s cope? Maybe it’s just the show I had the easiest access to as a kid. I guess I didn’t watch a whole bunch of tv or at least not a whole bunch that stuck with me.

5) Summer ez. (Have you seen her baphomet pics? 🥵)

6) In general, I doubt very much that either the optimist or the pessimist considers themselves such. It’s not really the sort of thing that admits of self-diagnosis in that way… Philosophically, the broader question is what? Do I align with Schopenhauer, Voltaire’s Leibniz, or Russel’s Leibniz? I’m not sure the tumblrinas care about the history of philosophy. I guess I’ll say to the extent that Schopenhauer relies on Indian mysticism, which I think is typically underrated, he’s simply mistaken about the world as will and representation. I’ll say that, I’m *not* a Buddhist. I think the doctrine of dukkha misses fundamental aspects of human existence. I’ll say that people have richer inner lives, deeper felt internal experiences, than you might assume from reading their little words on the internet. And that, on the whole, these are good things.

7) I mean, both ideally. Variety is the spice of life. If I had to choose I suppose it would be sunshine. But I’m terribly glad I don’t live in a world where I have to choose.

8) I have the cutest little book marks. My primary two at the moment are the sun and the moon, which I use for main text and end notes respectively. Though, I have been known to dog-ear in my time. I once got yelled at by my aunt for turning the corner of the page on my copy of Harry Potter and the order of the phoenix because it was a first edition and she was under the impression that it may be valuable some day. I was like, come on man, I’m 7. Don’t even piss. <- I didn’t say these things, but I was *like* that.

9) For the longest time I *only* wore steel toe capped boots because I ran myself over with an electric pallet stacker and tore my toenail off and decided I didn’t want that to happen again. I don’t do that anymore because I interact with heavy machinery less than I used to. Now all that matters to me is that they’re waterproof.

10) *My* signature scent like, I produce it? Or like I like it? I guess one of my favourite scents is lavender. But I've been told... Okay, it's important you guys know I do *not* have a yeast infection... I've been told some parts of my body naturally smell like bread, like, that sort of doughy yeasty (I s2g I do *not* (I did not hit her. I did not! oh hi mark)) smell that you get with bread sometimes. Is that what the question was asking?

11) I mean... That's broadly not for me to decide right? Unless the sort of dragons you're imagining have some sort of glamoury illusion magic, which seems plausible. Anyway, do you guys remember in Moby Dick when he goes on this wild tangent about how St. George and The Dragon was acutally about whales? And St. George's horse was actually a walrus or something. What was that about??

Okay, author's note, there's a time skip here. I've been scrolling through lists of dragons in popular culture for a while now and there are a pretty neat and widely varied selection of designs. I'll get back to you on this one.

12) It depends on why I'm writing! If it's a quick note to myself for future reference it'll generally be cursive, if it's an important document that will be read by other people generally it'll be print. If it's time-sensitive it'll be cursive. I remember writing essays for undergrad that I'm sure were totally illegible by the end of them, I think literally just a line on a page with occasional lifts and dips.

13) There is more information on wookieepedia than existed in my philosophy but a few minutes ago. The typology I've discerned is thus: blue - jock, green - nerd, yellow - geek, red - edgelord. And I'm a little bit of all of these, so I think any would be fine. Realistically though, I'm not sure a lightsaber is the best weapon in fantasy space-past-future where spaceships and lasers are common. Like, I'll let it slide because the original trilogy was doing a kirkegaardian faith thing and the prequels were doing a logic doesn't matter it's cool thing, and those are both respectable motivations to leave logistics aside for a bit.

14) Sad

15) Ice skates! I love ice skating!

16) I'm a youngest. I have an older sister, I think I talk about her here from time to time.

17) Well, how I would use it would depend massively on what it was. If the question is which superpower I think is the best then why not ask that? Which superpower would I have has a faint ring of incomprehensibility about it. It's really not clear which counterfactual is under consideration. *If* what?

Anyway, I think time control powers are up there right? Top five at least, easy. Imagine what you could do if you could stop time and sleep whenever you felt like it. I feel King Leerish about the ability to just be well rested. I would do such things, what they are yet I know not.

18) The problem with romantic relationships is that eventually, all of your most interesting clothing will end up in someone else's closet. I think my day-to-day wear tends to be mostly blues, blacks and whites. Not hugely interesting colourwise.

19) Snake, I think, they have fewer demands and I can't really handle any more pressure in my life than I already have. I would hate to be a bad bird mom... I would hate to be a bad snake mom too, but I think it's easier. Typically regarded as easier. I don't know.

20) Okay, so, it's like this right: medieval battle = will probably die. And it's also like this: behind city walls = safe, my friend and lover and confidant. And so, for very obvious reasons, it's gotta be a bow right? Like, I'm standing way out of the action and I'll shoot some arrows long range. But if that's against the spirit of the ask then it's gotta be some kind of polearm, like a halberd or something. Not even close. The advantage you get from distance is hard to overstate. Yeah, polearm for sure.

21) Mint choc chip, it's just such a classic. But also, I had a "london fog" flavour recently that was really compelling. It's just earl grey and vanilla but it's so good.

22) I'm more of a herbs person than a spices person. Like, hmm, I do really enjoy paprika and ginger and stuff like that, don't get me wrong. But it doesn't really hold a candle to the sheer universality of parsley or basil or oregano or mint. Herbs stay winning.

23) These days it's aptos because I am the worlds most basic bitch. And yes, I do still have a fondness for arial.

ask game that tells a lot about you.

how do you take your tea / coffee?

if you could be fluent in any language at the snap of your fingers, which one and why?

when do you wake up?

what was your favourite tv show as a kid?

summer or winter?

realist, optimist, or pessimist?

rain or sunshine?

how do you mark your spot in a book?

what are your favourite shoes like?

what would your non-perfume/cologne signature scent be?

if you were a dragon, what would you look like?

is your handwriting more print, cursive, or a mix?

what colour would your lightsaber be?

what is your defining personality trait?

roller skates or rollerblades or ice skates?

are you an only child? oldest / middle / youngest?

what would your superpower be? how would you use it?

what’s your clothing colour palette?

pet snake or pet bird?

weapon of choice in a medieval battle

the best ice cream flavour

what spices do you always use when cooking?

default font when typing?

[drdemonprince]

ok fine cis men aren't the bad gender it's all men and we're all exactly like that anon who admitted to having abused women even if we don't know it. are you fucking happy now? is this the solidarity you want us to feel with cis men, that we're all just as mich rapists and murderers of women as they are? you have some fucking nerve to be throwing vague jabs while calling an admitted abuser "brave"

Normally I don't platform asks like these, but I'm moved by the genuineness of your emotional reaction here. I think you're hurting, and you've been hurt, and that the belief that abuse and violence are located within one gendered group (to which you don't belong) has felt like a way of organizing your world that has helped you make sense of things, and given you guidelines for how to act and whom to trust that have helped keep you safe. I think a lot of assault survivors feel that way when they're not cis men and their attackers were cis men.

As someone who has experienced a ton of sexual predation at the hands of cis women, cis men, and even other trans people, I don't feel the same way. There is no "bad gender" I can chalk up my abuse to. I find there are no easy means of categorizing entire people as abuser or as victim either -- I have known so, so many people who have occupied both roles depending upon the power they wielded and the social context of the moment. Hell, one cis lesbian that I knew who was infamous in her community for raping trans men would always tell her victims that her acts were those of "trauma recovery," of her "reclaiming" her power after men had stolen it away.

Even she, I don't think, is irredeemable or ontologically evil.

I'm an abolitionist. That's a core value through which a lot of my political action and beliefs flow. If you're not on board with the project of abolitionism, you'll find much to object to here, and most of your objections are things I will refuse to entertain, because I do not believe human beings are disposable no matter what they do, and I don't believe that anyone should have the authority to deem another human being as disposable.

An abolitionist politics is incompatible with the idea that some people or some groups are inherently bad. It's incompatible with the belief that abuse and violence comes from evil. It's a worldview that holds that people do harm because of social structures and networks of power that must be destroyed -- systems like the patriarchy, cissexism, anti-Blackness, ableism, capitalism, and more. And I think one of the ways that we conquer such oppressive systems is by raising the consciousness of all the people trapped under it -- so that we can topple it together. I want trans men and cis men alike to realize they have some skin in the game.

You don't have to associate with the men you don't want to associate with. If, because of repeated abuses at the hands of men, you can't ever trust them, well, those are your feelings, that's your life, that is your business. But when your personal feelings of safety are used as a justification for developing and promoting a worldview with transphobic, transmisogynistic implications, I'm gonna talk shit about that on my stupid little blog. And I'm gonna continue conducting my life in the way I feel I should.

And for me, that means forging common ground between trans men and cis men, and pushing both groups to take women's concerns seriously (especially trans women's concerns) and to stop centering themselves in feminist dialogue. There's a place for both trans men and cis men in the gender revolution, but we gotta do a lot of work on ourselves to stop getting in the way. It's work I'm emotionally equipped to do and find rewarding, and it's fine if you don't. There are lots of other people who need support that you can focus your energies on -- other survivors of abuse and assault that you perhaps find it easier to relate to. That's important work too, and I wish you well in doing it. Just make sure you're not excluding trans women in that work or I'll continue to be annoying about it on my stupid little blog.

[possumteeths]

One thing about veilguard that bums me out is that this is the very first bioware game that I dont feel any desire to play again. All of the decisions made in the game either dont matter or are made for you so there’s no wondering like “what wouldve happened if I did this instead of that?” There’s so many moments in the game where it felt as if I should really debate what option to pick, only to realize through playing more that decisions really don’t matter. So all decisions made in later stages of the game just kinda feel meaningless.

Everything is set up so one dimensionally that the replay value is unfortunately very low. Theres very few ways to play things differently. I was incredibly disappointed that you do not have the option to kill Lucanis’s shitty cousin. You dont even get any option at ALL over what to do with him. It doesnt matter what you do with the bald warden dude, it doesnt matter whether or not you chose to kill that rando mayor… and the list goes on.

I used replay bioware games just to get different DIALOGUE! This game had very little in terms of meaningful dialogue! Much of the dialogue between characters feels so flat or unrelated to the plot. Character conflict is extremely forced so replaying the game wouldn’t necessarily give you anything new to chew on. Its frustrating that Rook is designated as the group’s therapist, but is often completely sidelined by everyone and everything going on! I romanced Lucanis and he still was hella flirting with Neve which made the romance route feel like a complete afterthought.

Approval ratings dont matter at all, theres genuinely nothing that changes besides your own insight to the different characters worldviews. If someone disliked something, you dont get different dialogue or attitude or nuffin! What does hardening even do in DAV? Neve or Lucanis being hardened has no impact on anything at all besides some rando skill buffs. I thought maybe Harding or Davrin’s endgame sacrifice wouldve meant something more if you had some way of hardening them.

It felt just kind of random to kill off one of your companions in the endgame. Especially when you’ve played through the entire game making choices that were ultimately meaningless. The choice of who dies in the endgame feels just as meaningless as everything else because you the player have spent the entire game realizing that approval ratings dont matter, plot choices dont matter, characterization choices dont matter etc. So if they want to do something as heavy hitting as killing off a main character, wouldnt it have made more sense to build it up in a way that there would be SOME emotional impact? If you were able to harden Davrin or Harding, then killing them wouldve hit harder dang it! Killing off characters feels just cheap when youre overly aware that nothing matters.

No matter your choices in this game, its still going to play the exact same every time with very little deviation. Its almost like playing a telltale game or something. The plot is pathed out for you, your choices are superfluous, your romance options are as noteworthy as skyrim’s “put on a necklace, okie doke now you’re married.”

The game itself isnt bad, but it reminds me of a mass market paperback book. The kinds that come out monthly. You know exactly what the plot is gonna be, you know there’s gonna be a cast of characters, you know theres gonna be bad guys and good guys.., and then you finish the book thinking “Yup that was ok!” Then you shelve it and never look at it again because its one amongst 17492820102 others in the genre. To use another metaphor, this game is buttered toast, it feels like something youve had before, its familiar, it tastes good… but thats it. Its just bread and butter, and theres no sense dressing it up or toasting the bread more or less because at the end of the day… its still toast.

[theunsinkableship1]

Things are not always what they seem...

⚠️Disclaimer: This is Lukolaland only. If you don't believe you should skip. No harm intended and no hard feelings. Only strong feelings here.

Dear Lukola Shippers,

I hope this message finds you well, no matter where in the world you are. Though I’ve been mostly quiet recently, I want you to know I’m still firmly aboard this ship, and the waters have felt calmer of late. We are witnessing great waves of success coming to our Lukola. Watching them thrive individually and achieve such success is a joy, it’s wonderful to see them striving and thriving in their unique journeys.

Today, I’d like to open up about something personal. It’s a topic that requires sensitivity but resonates deeply with what we often discuss as a community. Appearances can be deceiving.

Humans are complex beings, and we can never be entirely certain of what’s happening behind closed doors. Even when all signs seem to point in one direction, the reality could be something entirely different.

When I was younger, I was in relationships that seemed one way from the outside but were very different beneath the surface. Back then, I was seen as someone confident and put-together a "popular girl," if you will. But inside, I felt like a wallflower. People were drawn to the version of me they saw, not the person I truly was.

In one relationship, I fell deeply in love. To the outside world, we looked like the perfect couple. But the reality was far from that. I was shy and cautious, but I fell for one of the hit boys. I was deeply in love, but he wasn’t. I became more of a mix between a prop and a seat filler in his life. While I was publicly acknowledged, I wasn’t truly valued in his heart. Being young and in love, I sometimes acted jealous and irrationally, making poor decisions in my attempt to hold on to the relationship. While I gave my all, I never was someone that he truly cherished. I was young and blinded by my feelings, so I clung tightly to the relationship, convincing myself and others that everything was fine. Looking back, I realize that what people saw from the outside, the smiles, the handholding, was a façade for a connection that didn’t exist in his heart. His attention was always somewhere else.

Later, I entered another relationship. I was tired of being alone. All my friends were in relationships, and I found myself longing for one too. This time, it was with someone I became very close to through mutual friends. Though we had a strong bond, we quickly realized we weren’t a romantic match. Yet, for two years, we stayed in a "relationship" because it worked for both of us at that time, he was coming to terms with his own identity, and I was healing and waiting for the right person. To the outside world, we were a couple. We even lived together and shared milestones. But in reality, we were best friends who blurred the lines of companionship. Only our close friends knew the truth: to the outside world, we appeared to be a couple, but in reality, we were just best friends. Sometimes, things can get messy, and lines blur. While I was in this pretend relationship, someone from my past reentered my life, wanting to marry me. Things moved quickly, and even though my friend knew our arrangement was temporary and understood the situation, there might have been some emotional complexity. Perhaps I was ready to move on before he was, or maybe it was because we were emotionally intertwined in many ways. Societal perceptions could have played a role as well. I’m still not entirely sure. After my wedding, we went our separate ways. Though we remain on friendly terms, we are no longer close, and I haven’t heard from him in years.

Life is full of such complexities. For example, I have a chronic hormonal condition that, at times, makes me appear pregnant when I’m not. Years ago, this led to assumptions and speculation, especially early in my marriage. People congratulated me on pregnancies that didn’t exist, which was deeply painful as I faced uncertainty about whether I could have children. It taught me how much appearances can mislead even well-meaning people.

So, why share all this? Because as fans, it’s easy to speculate about the lives of people we admire. But the truth is, only they know what’s happening behind closed doors. I’ve noticed many people dismiss or deny the bond between them, but I believe we can’t be doubtful of its existence. I’m confident they are also aware of what they share. What we’re speculating about is what’s truly happening behind the scenes and why things are unfolding the way they are.

It all comes down to perception and observation. There’s something peculiar about this situation, too many coincidences for certain things to be purely incidental. Patterns emerge that can be explained rationally, and those who pay close attention recognize the mixed messages that make a straightforward narrative unlikely. Occam’s razor doesn’t apply neatly here.

Moreover, we have public evidence, not just imagined scenarios, that suggests there’s been something deeper between them at some point. The idea that 'there’s nothing more' doesn’t hold water because, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Appearances, whether on red carpets, social media, or interviews can only tell part of the story. And while our love for Luke and Nicola is real and rooted in admiration for their talent and chemistry, we must tread lightly.

I adore Luke’s subtle and nuanced acting and his incredible singing voice, which has a charm that captivates. Nicola’s range as an actress is extraordinary, and her vibrant personality shines through in everything she does. I support them both as individuals and as a couple because they make me believe in their connection.

I remain here because I believe in the love they seem to share, whether it’s in a glance, a gesture, or an unspoken understanding. Until the day there’s unequivocal proof otherwise, I’ll keep believing because they make me feel the love.

With love and hope,

The unsinkable ship 🚢

[mitchfynde]

I agree with some of what you're saying and I disagree with other parts, some parts vehemently. The talking point about the primaries being rigged... it just doesn't work for me. This was not an example of it being rigged, because there flat out was no primary. There was nothing to rig. Since timing was short, they chose the VP. It's the most obvious choice, as it's the person people already technically voted for when they cast their ballots for Biden.

Another thing about the primaries is that parties don't owe you those in the first place. You can choose to vote for whichever party or independent you want. The parties don't owe you a separate democratic process for choosing their candidate. Simply don't vote for their candidate if you don't like who they chose. That's what happened this time around, clearly.

Sorry, that topic is just a pet peeve.

The assumption of "vote blue no matter who" was definitely wrong and I definitely agree it was a problem. I believe the reason they tried so hard to court moderate Republicans is because they probably were aware of the fact that public perception of the party right now is that they are too far left, as funny as that is to anyone on the left.

Honestly, I think it's hard to energize the Democrat or leftist voters. The leftist media sphere is very anti-America and anti-electoral politics. They mock the idea of voting. They are embarassed to support the candidates, as they view them as an extension of the colonizer state that they loathe so much. I don't have as much insight on why it's hard to energize the moderate left, true Democrats, but I'm sure someone out there knows.

Republican voters certainly don't have a monopoly on being dumb or voting based on emotion. I would certainly never claim that everyone who votes Democrat are intellectuals. Hell, even some of the people who ARE intellectuals voting for the Democrats are people I'd consider dumbasses. People who rallied behind Kamala while still insisting that she was genocidal come to mind.

THAT BEING SAID, I do sort of resent what you said about Democrat voters being histrionic. Voting for the guy who tried to steal the previous election sets a very scary precedent. Especially if you have any knowledge about how it was done. And it seems like the fears of what kind of administration he'd run are already proving to be correct, based on who he is nominating.

The Republicans are, right now, more fanatical and fundamentalist than they've been in awhile. Abortion already got flipped to the states. Trans issues have been center stage for years, primarily because of right wing media keeping it there. It's a scary time if you have any progressive values whatsoever. And those fears are not at all unfounded. The same cannot be said for the opposite side.

For your short list:

Don't agree with your phrasing, but I agree with you on the optics. It was definitely a bad move to skip the primaries, but I wonder if Biden stepping down so late sort of doomed them regardless.

They definitely need to energize their base more.

Appealing to Republicans certainly didn't work this time, although I think it should still be done. Biden had some success with it.

The smugness angle certainly needs to be addressed, but it's difficult with such a huge double standard in demeanor between the parties.

Wasn't even aware they scapegoated minorities, but if they did that certainly isn't a good play either.

I personally like the DNC, but they need a big refresher on strategy going forward. I have some confidence they'll at least have a better attempt next time. If they lose again this brutally, it will be crazy, but that's assuming USA has any more elections lol.

[comikadraws]

Did Kishimoto write ANY naruto light novel at all or at least contributed to one of them? Should we consider them canon or not?

The Canon Value of the Naruto Novels

(and filler episodes)

Oof. Naruto canon is a complex thing, actually, because each and every piece of material we've got is inconsistent in some way and is getting discredited left and right.

I have previously explained in a different post how the Naruto manga and the Databooks have repeatedly retconned themselves or each other despite both having been authored by Kishimoto. Evidently, there is not one 100% secure source for canon Naruto lore.

Novel Authors

While the Novels do credit Kishimoto right on the cover page alongside other authors (in this case, Takashi Yano and Jun Esaka), they do not specify the degree of Kishimoto's involvement with the work.

The Naruto Wiki states the following:

"Though each novel tends to be written by different authors, all novels have covers illustrated by the respective manga's illustrator [Masashi Kishimoto and Mikio Ikemoto respectively]"

So, to my knowledge, most if not all of the novels written for the Naruto series were not authored by Kishimoto himself. His name on the novel covers likely only refers to his authorship of the original Naruto series (which the novels are based on) and/or his contribution as an illustrator.

J-books, at the very least, never credits Kishimoto as the "author" but instead for being the "original creator".

Japanese: 原作:岸本斉史 著者:江坂純 English: Original work: Masashi Kishimoto Author: Jun Esaka

Wikipedia does, in one instance, credit Kishimoto as a "co-author", but I'd take this with a grain of salt.

Incorporation into the Naruto Franchise

When it comes to whether or not the novels (and, by extension, filler episodes) should be considered canon, you will encounter two camps:

Those who consider anything canon as long as it was officially published as part of the Naruto franchise

Those who consider anything canon as long as it was written or supervised by Kishimoto himself

As you can see, "canon" appears to be a personal interpretation.

Jun Esaka, the author of Sasuke Retsuden, stated in a Tweet that she considers the manga to be the only truth/canon of the Narutoverse.

She made this statement in 2019 in spite of Sasuke Retsuden having been given an illustration by Kishimoto at the time of its release. This is not a particularly radical take as even the Naruto movies (that are largely considered non-canonical by the fandom) have received official illustrations made by Kishimoto.

(Below are Kishimoto's illustrations for the Shippuden movie and the Bonds movie)

Later (in 2022), Sasuke Retsuden received a manga adaptation (albeit by a different mangaka than Kishimoto, which is Shingo Kimura), and was eventually turned into an anime filler. The latter is considered anime canon, and the problem with anime canon is that Ikemoto has no qualms about referencing "anime canon" episodes in the Boruto manga (which also resulted in the appearance of Tsumire).

Could all of this promotion of Sasuke Retsuden mean that Jun Esaka's work received canon status in spite of her previous statements? You can certainly argue, but then you will run into a similar issue with the movies because the Road to Ninja movie got a manga one-shot.

With all of these variables to consider, I have come to the following conclusion: Canon is a matter of convenience and semantics.

Canon Convenience and Semantics

I cannot emphasize enough how much both considering and not considering the novels canon is valid because "canon" is a matter of semantics that relies on convenience.

In its original, religious meaning, "canon" describes a list of authoritative books accepted as holy scripture. Emphasis on "accepted" because scriptures are considered "canon" not on the condition of who authored them but based on what others decided is authentic and what is not.

Fandom then adopted the term "canon" and now it describes whatever we want it to describe. Typically, fan-made works are considered "uncanonical" by default (exceptions apply, such as with the SCP universe; please don't google this if you cannot handle horror) and any "official" content (ie. released by official publishers) is considered "canon". But then some franchises will have fans that try to redefine the meaning of "canon", focusing on authorial intent only. This definition includes works that the author intended or accepted as true to their story, or supervised or collaborated on. And then there are those who believe that there is only one "original story" or will reserve the term "canon" to works exclusively authored by the original creator.

So yes, it truly is about convenience. This is the impression I've been getting from the fandom so far, at the very least. The canon value of different projects is often not questioned on its own but instead in conjunction with berating other fans for liking certain characters or ships, surrounding their statements with comments such as "xy fans believe glorified fanfiction 🤭", denying them any ground to stand on.

Not that hate is the only reason, however. I, for example, will refer only to the manga and databooks for my analyses both for the sake of cutting down on time and effort (no way in hell am I foresting through 90 hours of filler content), and also because I try to appeal to a broad audience that includes manga/databook purists.

Needless to say, the additional content (anime, novels, movies) conflicts with manga and Databook information more often than I'd like, too, making it even harder for me to puzzle together Naruto canon. Taking all of these additional materials into account would only be an additional burden. But since the definition of "canon" is not universal, I feel free to define "canon" in a way that assists me rather than weighs me down.

My point is: The fandom has not yet agreed on one definition of "canon" and it likely never will. You need to choose what you are comfortable with. And if you are met with fandom warriors who will insult you for that, keep in mind they are just trying to play historian over something as ridiculous as wizard ninjas.

[mcjhay]

I won't stop being me. Despite all the heartbreaks, the deceitful people, and the moments that tested my faith in love and humanity, I refuse to let this world change the core of who I am. I've been hurt in ways that cut deep, betrayed by those I trusted, and let down by people I thought would never leave. But through it all, l've learned that the worst thing I could do is allow those experiences to harden my heart or dim the light of who I truly am.

I am a sweet, loving, and affectionate gentleman, and that's not something I'm willing to sacrifice, no matter how many times life tries to push me in the opposite direction. I wear my heart on my sleeve because I believe in the beauty of vulnerability. I give my love freely, not because I expect anything in return, but because that's the kind of person I choose to be. Even when my love has been taken for granted or met with dishonesty, I know that loving wholeheartedly is not a weakness—it's a strength.

Yes, I've encountered deceitful people who saw my kindness as an opportunity to take advantage of me, who mistook my gentle nature for naivety. But their actions say more about them than they do about me. I will not let their choices dictate mine. I will not stop showing compassion, offering my shoulder to lean on, or opening my heart to the possibility of true love. To do so would be to let them win, and I won't give them that power.

I've come to understand that heartbreak is a part of life, but it doesn't define me. Instead, it has shaped me, making me more resilient and more aware of my worth. I know now that not everyone will appreciate my love, but that doesn't mean I should stop giving it. The right person, the one who truly sees me for who I am, will value every bit of the love and care I offer. And when that day comes, I'll be ready-not closed off or bitter, but open and willing to love again.

I choose to keep being the man who listens, who cares, who loves deeply and honestly. I choose to remain the gentleman who values respect, loyalty, and kindness. No amount of heartbreak can take away the joy I find in being the person I was meant to be. I refuse to let the mistakes of others change my character or make me doubt the goodness that still exists in this world.

So, I will keep showing up with an open heart. I will keep believing in love, in kindness, and in the beauty of human connection. And I will keep being me—a sweet, loving, affectionate gentleman— because that is my truth, and I am proud of it. The world may try to take that from me, but it will never succeed. May we all find true love💕

[doverstar]

Please learn that it is not possible to be racist towards white people, certainly not white billionaires. Racism in the US is inherently built on a historical precedence of slavery and discrimination against people of color and minorities, not the white majority. The fact that people seemingly lack such concern for these 5 lives is by no means because of racism, and I’m honestly appalled that you would think so.

Please learn that the definition of racism is treating a person a certain way [discriminating, prejudiced, antagonism] based on their race. The person who communicated with me in the Ask you're referring to was saying they wanted "yts" to drown. "Yt", a slang word which here means "white people" or "whities". They wanted people with a certain skin color, of a certain race, to drown. The lack of concern for them in people who are lacking concern because they are white is racism. Are you telling me that racism can only happen to people who are not of a race that causes their skin color to be pale, creamy in shade, or "white"? That it is not physically or mentally possible to discriminate against, be prejudiced against, or antagonize a specific race of people, because they're not a specific shade of brown in skin color? Isn't that discriminatory? You can be racist toward any race of people. That is the definition of racism. If it is a race and you are treating them a certain way because of their race, you are being racist. For you to behave as though human beings who have money and whose skin is pale don't count when it comes to racism is prejudiced and it is discrimination. White people are people. Black people are people. All human beings are people and all human beings should be treated like people. I'm honestly appalled that you don't know what racism is. I'm honestly appalled that you will only apply it conditionally, under circumstances that make you feel more comfortable.

[dogsplayingpoker]

Ok weird it wasn't letting me reblog this properly. Anways hiiiii

I did read it (over a year ago when i reblogged this) and that isn't what I said, or my criticism of his point and, overall, the neo-liberal ancient-contemporary comparative perspective that Devereaux is routinely writing these articles in. It would be silly to be fully Pro-Rome, sure, but I'm not really accusing him of that persay. I do still think his general perspective is a silly and factually inaccurate one and disagree with it, so I therefor disagree with the arguments he makes starting from this perspective. In particular, I think that no matter how much he claims to actively be against it, Devereaux and the many historians that follow his same playbook end up: 1. romanticizing (I previously said "admiring," which may have been where we got mixed up) Rome by claiming it was a ghastly horrific slave state (true) while also being unable to help from looking to "the good parts" with a kind of breathless nostalgia, and here, overtly for guidance. This is of course a pretty common issue for classicists, unfortunately, including professors of mine that I've generally really respected. Usually the "good parts" = freedom of religion in occupied territories, civil rights afforded to slaves (+the way that pre-Race slavery functioned differently in general), and exactly what Devereaux says in the title of the article, i.e. their "Notion of authority" being likened, often, to a gentle but firm father figure who knows whats best for his children. It is absolutely hilarious to me how often historians, even ones that claim to have left-wing values, can believe in the noble pater familias rule of the romans with a smile and a tear in their eye. Does anyone else here remember 'the white man's burden'? Did anyone see that weird tucker carlson speech where he talks about daddy coming to spank the disobedient little girl that (assumably?) was supposed to be the Biden government? Anyways. Writers try to isolate only that there was religious self determination (in occupied territories of an expansionist empire), that they Ruled the horrible violent imperial war machine Fairly, and then don't even hide the fumble when they get to the slavery part, proudly saying YEAH, they were ENSLAVED, sure, and that's BAD, BUT........ This all ties into issue two, or the underlying issue:

2. Devereaux is a liberal American historian that is either unable to appreciate the full context of the country he lives in OR is actively obfuscating it AND/OR accepts it and thinks its just peachy outside of a few stubborn issues like police brutality and the like which he thinks can be handled in a vacuum by throwing enough good old fashioned liberal values at them. He fails to view issues from a systemic lens and therefor thinks anything he doesn't like is a weird flaw coming from some outside source. In that article (and I can't find this specific article again on Foreign Policy to pull examples from, I'm sorry) he was trying to 'learn from rome' for the sake of America. Even if he's saying Rome was a heavily flawed society, he is saying our empire can still learn a good thing from their empire. I disagree with that. I disagree with the empires staying empires in the first place, or that empires are things worth saving, or that they're even possible to save. My argument is also that we should actually definitely not look to Ancient Rome for advice on law enforcement, or indeed any of our policies point blank period. I personally think this kind of Rome-USA compare and contrast exercise is always fnny because the writer also never seems to reckon with how much we already, fundamentally, ARE Rome-- in all the worst ways, and in the ways he's claiming we can 'learn' from them. We already have. We've been romanticizing and following in their footsteps very intentionally the whole time, just as others were inspired to follow in ours in a horrific timeline of gore and human atrocities. Devereaux, per his website, is really into classical liberalism, liberal democracies, private property, free-market capitalism, and John Locke. (https://acoup.blog/2024/07/05/collections-the-philosophy-of-liberty-on-liberalism/). We simply have really different perspectives on politics that also inform how we view and would choose to write about things as historians.

I think this quote from that blog post on liberalism is especially funny in context: "And of course Cicero himself never fully absorbs the implications of his philosophy: a wealthy Roman slave-holder, it never occurs to Cicero that perhaps he daily violates the natural law by keeping people in bondage." Devereaux himself never fully absorbs the implications of his philosophy: a white well-to-do professor in an elite seat within American Academia, it never occurs to Devereaux that perhaps he daily violates the individual freedoms of liberalism by rationalizing and hiding away the dark parts of a fundamentally unjust empire relying on the slave labor of prisoners, the indentured servitude of sweatshop workers worldwide, the slaughter and subjugation of millions of in the global south and the underclasses within the empire itself, and the theft and hoarding of the world's resources. But okay. Cicero bad, John Locke good. Got it. My argument would of course be that they are both bad, both equally ignoring the reality of the society they lived in and their places within it. Devereaux is starting his argument from an already catastrophically flawed point of view that forces him to look past things like 'context' whenever it becomes inconvenient. He has to say in the post multiple times that like yeah, sure, Locke's view of who counted as a "person" worthy of having things like "rights" was, um...narrower than ours today, but he was still correct because I like him (and it's totally different from how other people cited, like Cicero, were incorrect hypocrites). Ignore the slavery and colonialism, same old same old, it is still correct and not at all laughable to claim that the United States was a nation formed on a defining principle of inalienable freedoms for every single person. He mentions that those things were obviously bad but doesn't see them as truly conflicting, more as growing pains. He even says the founding father's misogyny and racism (towards the enslaved specifically: indigenous people, and therefore the ACTUAL founding principles of the US colonial empire, go completely unmentioned) "[...] represented betrayals of the principles that otherwise document: the crime was common, the hypocrisy was special." American exceptionalism who? Obviously if he was saying we should instate a more 1:1 ancient roman government that would also be ridiculous. But my point is that he's asking the wrong questions about the society we have and what's wrong with it in the first place. He is often wrong about Rome and near-universally wrong about America.

Despite Sparta’s reputation for superior fighting, Spartan armies were as likely to lose battles as to win them, especially against peer opponents such as other Greek city-states. Sparta defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian War—but only by accepting Persian money to do it, reopening the door to Persian influence in the Aegean, which Greek victories at Plataea and Salamis nearly a century early had closed. Famous Spartan victories at Plataea and Mantinea were matched by consequential defeats at Pylos, Arginusae, and ultimately Leuctra. That last defeat at Leuctra, delivered by Thebes a mere 33 years after Sparta’s triumph over Athens, broke the back of Spartan power permanently, reducing Sparta to the status of a second-class power from which it never recovered. Sparta was one of the largest Greek city-states in the classical period, yet it struggled to achieve meaningful political objectives; the result of Spartan arms abroad was mostly failure. Sparta was particularly poor at logistics; while Athens could maintain armies across the Eastern Mediterranean, Sparta repeatedly struggled to keep an army in the field even within Greece. Indeed, Sparta spent the entirety of the initial phase of the Peloponnesian War, the Archidamian War (431-421 B.C.), failing to solve the basic logistical problem of operating long term in Attica, less than 150 miles overland from Sparta and just a few days on foot from the nearest friendly major port and market, Corinth. The Spartans were at best tactically and strategically uncreative. Tactically, Sparta employed the phalanx, a close-order shield and spear formation. But while elements of the hoplite phalanx are often presented in popular culture as uniquely Spartan, the formation and its equipment were common among the Greeks from at least the early fifth century, if not earlier. And beyond the phalanx, the Spartans were not innovators, slow to experiment with new tactics, combined arms, and naval operations. Instead, Spartan leaders consistently tried to solve their military problems with pitched hoplite battles. Spartan efforts to compel friendship by hoplite battle were particularly unsuccessful, as with the failed Spartan efforts to compel Corinth to rejoin the Spartan-led Peloponnesian League by force during the Corinthian War. Sparta’s military mediocrity seems inexplicable given the city-state’s popular reputation as a highly militarized society, but modern scholarship has shown that this, too, is mostly a mirage. The agoge, Sparta’s rearing system for citizen boys, frequently represented in popular culture as akin to an intense military bootcamp, in fact included no arms training or military drills and was primarily designed to instill obedience and conformity rather than skill at arms or tactics. In order to instill that obedience, the older boys were encouraged to police the younger boys with violence, with the result that even in adulthood Spartan citizens were liable to settle disputes with their fists, a tendency that predictably made them poor diplomats. But while Sparta’s military performance was merely mediocre, no better or worse than its Greek neighbors, Spartan politics makes it an exceptionally bad example for citizens or soldiers in a modern free society. Modern scholars continue to debate the degree to which ancient Sparta exercised a unique tyranny of the state over the lives of individual Spartan citizens. However, the Spartan citizenry represented only a tiny minority of people in Sparta, likely never more than 15 percent, including women of citizen status (who could not vote or hold office). Instead, the vast majority of people in Sparta, between 65 and 85 percent, were enslaved helots. (The remainder of the population was confined to Sparta’s bewildering array of noncitizen underclasses.) The figure is staggering, far higher than any other ancient Mediterranean state or, for instance, the antebellum American South, rightly termed a slave society with a third of its people enslaved.

[comas-are-for-sleeping]

its so mindboggling that people can go “how can you say free palestine if you’re queer” as if the opinions a person has changes the validity of their life??? yall sound real similar to the people saying trans people are a danger to society

[sadgirlautumn]

.

[quietwingsinthesky]

anyway episodes that sam's psychic powers should have come back during. imagine him arguing with this 'i'm a real psychic' guy and then yanking his gun out his hand with his own powers. fully on accident but it happens.

now see there's some drama for him and dean! that would work! sam tried to hide his hallucinations but couldnt. but theoretically he could hide this. and he should! because his brother literally just went and killed a woman for being a little too on the monster side for his liking. for being so evil that she couldn't possibly change. and so if sam's powers came back now? sam's powers? that he has because he has demon blood? he would be so fucking sick with stress trying to hide that from dean.

because. you know. if dean's already jumping for a reason to 'deal with' sam because he's hallucinating, a thing he can't even control. then what else is sam supposed to assume will happen once dean knows about this?

[medicinemane]

.

[perenlop]

i get the frustration with so many villains now getting treatment like “oh they had a sucky childhood so actually you need to feel bad for them and not hold them accountable for their actions” but the counter of “this person was born evil and cant ever grow and its pathetic to assume that they can, also people cant be redeemed no matter what and this is fantastic writing actually” is so exhausting. 

[llycaons]

I can and have xed out of fics that make lwj speak too much. in fact I just did. stop giving that man paragraphs!!

[arsonshub]

the one thing i critique beastars about is

if wolves and other carnivores can survive off fucking bean-protein and eggs then like

i dont feel is super unreasonable an "Herbivore" could eat meat and not throw up/their body reject it entirely