#like combining all the factors and based on that making a decision

[ethernitty]

love that the tailoring study i gave as second choice has like a thing saying which skills you need one of which being like knowledge of trends...... like yeaaaaaaah i dont fucking know the trends because 1 ive not been among people that arent my family in months 2 fashion moves so fucking quick nowadays and fucking 3 im not interested in trends and therefore i dont seek them out

[tangerinelovez]

mtl: txt asking for your meal to be remade when made incorrectly at a restaurant

pairing: txt x female-implied reader with dietary restrictions (they've been dating for six months) tw; food allergies, veganism, confrontation, uncomfortable social experience, social anxiety........ also I didn't proofread this so that's a warning itself word count: 2394 disclaimer: This is all fictional and just for entertainment purposes. This is not based on any fact and is just my own interpretations of how I think the members would act if their girlfriend's order was wrong at a restaurant and they had some kind of dietary restriction. note: I did make my decisions based on a combination of factors. I think some members would be very sympathetic about your order being wrong, but may be uncomfortable expressing your concerns to the waiter, leaving you to be the one to voice your dissatisfaction with your meal. On the other hand, some members may be more willing to speak up on your behalf, but may not fully offer the emotional support you may be looking for in this situation.

MOST

Yeonjun -> you can always count on him to speak up for you when your meal isn't right... but you will have to explain to him what's wrong with it

you have been a vegan by choice for a few years, and by this point, you had gotten pretty used to great service and creative food options when going out. Not to mention, you had been pleased to find that being vegan hadn’t deterred nearly as many guys from dating you as everyone had made it sound.

to make a long story short, it had been a while since you’d been faced with a vegan’s worst nightmare: an inedible pool of steaming hot vegan cheese falling off the edge of your pizza slice in rivulets while on a rare night out with your boyfriend. on the bright side, he would be quick to fix the issue, hating to see you so sad and disappointed with your meal while he's enjoying his own so much. he'd drop his own slice of pizza, and his brows would furrow as you explain why your vegan pizza was not made correctly, and he'd nod attentively, eyes wide as he listens. he'd reassure you that he'd handle it for you and then flag down the waiter, politely explaining why your pizza isn't correct as it appeared to be drowning in a river of non-dairy cheese instead of the typical sprinkle you'd come to expect when eating at this restaurant. when the second pizza comes out, he'd study it and your face closely, and lean in and assertively ask if he needs to go talk to the kitchen himself, or if it looks right for you this time. part of you wonders how he can't seem to fully recognize this pizza looks entirely different than the first one that had been swimming in rivulets of cheese, but he's so cute and concerned, you hold down your urge to point out just how different the two pizzas look from each other.

when you smile and reassure him the dough looks cooked thoroughly and there's an appropriate amount of vegan cheese and the correct toppings, he'd let out a big sigh of relief and pick up his own forgotten slice, saying he doesn't mind eating his pizza cold as long as it means he can share a nice meal with you and shooting you a wink as he takes a bite. a bizarre expression crosses his face suddenly, prompting you to ask what is it before he says we're getting ice cream after this right? and you nod, loving how his mind is always on food, even when eating.

let me look up the best vegan ice cream around here then... he says, pulling out his samsung as he wipes his face.

you're always eating some fruit pop at the place we normally go to, and I know you say you like it... but you deserve ice cream tonight. you laugh, finding it amusing how he seems to be more impacted by all of this than you are, but smile as you eat your well-crafted pizza, feeling lucky to have found a man who is eager to keep you fed and happy. Taehyun -> your attentive and observant boyfriend will always do what it takes to make you happy, even if he doesn't fully get the "vegan" thing as soon as your order hit the table, terry noticed that your face didn't light up as it normally does when the two of you go out for tacos. why the long face baby? he'd say, leaning in over the booth. you'd hesitate, feeling a little apprehensive about bringing up your concerns. You don't really like inconveniencing others over your dietary restrictions, and try to not make a big deal of them.

as you tell terry your order is wrong and why, he nods in understanding, but hesitates before saying baby... can't you just eat it this one time? I just don't get why you wont have the real thing sometimes... it's much healthier than that fake meat...

you sigh, shaking your head slightly, a slightly amused smile on your face. your gym bro boyfriend still maintained a slight skepticism towards your diet even after all these months of dating. you know i'm vegan for reasons other than just health reasons, terry.

he nods and reaches for your hand across the table, an earnest look in his eyes. you know I don't mind that you're vegan, (y/n). let me ask them for your fake meat and fake cheese tacos.

he raises his free hand to signal the waiter back over, and calmly explains that you need the tacos remade without dairy and with the vegan meat crumbles. he smiles widely as the waiter apologizes and offers to discount your bill, apologizing profusely for the mistake.

when the remade tacos arrive, terry inspects them heavily, even offering to take a bite to ensure it's not real meat and cheese on these, as well. you can feel yourself fall in love even more when his eyes widen in amazement after he takes a bite and says, it's definitely vegan, but wow, it's good... maybe next time you can convince him to share some vegan appetizers and entrees. Beomgyu -> he teases. a lot. but at the end of the day, he would do anything for you if you really needed him to yeah I mean they definitely have a couple options for you here, right? your boyfriend of six months had asked on the way to the ramen restaurant he had recently taken a liking to. you had bitten your lip, unsure if your dietary restrictions would really be accommodated here. due to some health reasons, you were unable to eat gluten or dairy. taking into account your other allergies, it could often make eating somewhere feel impossible. now that the steaming bowl was in front of you, it was clear that your concerns had been valid. you watch beomgyu carefully eat some of his own ramen for a few seconds before sighing softly, prompting him to look up from his bowl and to your blank expression and untouched food. Is something wrong with yours? he asks after swallowing his soup. you nod, feeling a bit embarrassed. it had been a really long day, and you had just wanted to eat something that sounded good without worrying about all of your restrictions and allergies, but now that it was in front of you, and you could see just how much gluten, soy, and sesame was in the ramen, you knew you could not eat it.

he quirks his brow. ah, is today a day you spontaneously care about your diet again?

you feel heat rush into your face, knowing he's just kidding, but feeling embarrassed and not wanting to be an inconvenience all the same. hey, i didn't realize they'd put so many huge chunks of tofu in here... It didn't list tofu as an ingredient in here... and there's so much soy sauce already in the broth... not to mention, sesame seeds randomly in here...

you move your spoon around sadly, not feeling like making a scene at the small family-owned ramen restaurant. I'm pretty sure my noodles aren't gluten-free either... you sigh. I can't eat this, gyu. he looks up from his meal to look at you and your bowl again. ok... he says, looking over to the kitchen before looking at you again. do you want a new one or something?

you look down with a slight shrug.

he looks at you blankly for a few seconds as he stirs his ramen before saying ...do you want me to tell them you need a new one?

you sheepishly nod and he scoffs. alright, i'll tell them my girlfriend decided to take her allergies seriously today, and to please take that into account when remaking the bowl.

he raises a hand and furiously waves it around to get your waiter's attention.

anything for you, you big old karen. i'll make sure you get the best gluten-free, soy-free, everything-good-free ramen they have here. and maybe even get us a discount! he loves to be dramatic... but at the end of the day, he will always step up when it really matters to you.

Soobin -> he loves making you vegan food at home, but can get a bit embarrassed in restaurants soobin loved to cook for you at home or take you to familiar restaurants, but sometimes, for special occasions, he would try to take you somewhere new and exciting that seemed to be getting good reviews as a date night spot online. normally, he would double and triple check to ensure there were vegan options, or at the very least, vegetarian options that could be made vegan, but he had told you tonight's restaurant was a bit of a gamble... and the overly cheesy burger in front of you seemed to be indicating a loss. are you sure you can't just... eat around it? soobin's wide eyes stare into yours as he makes the suggestion.

I mean, it's baked in... you take the bun off of your burger to show your boyfriend how the veggie burger appears to have real cheese and breadcrumbs baked into the patty.

both food items you could not have as a vegan. I mean... the waiter wrote down no cheese or breadcrumbs on this veggie burger. i'm sure it's just vegan cheese... he says, looking down at his own burger with a quick glance before looking back up at you.

just eat your burger, soobin. you say with a smile, not wanting him to go hungry just because you can't eat your meal. he shakes his head quickly, taking a sip of his cola. no, no... it doesn't feel right for you to just sit and watch me eat... you smile as you see his ears start to get a bit red. you look at him reassuringly with a smile. soob, come on. it's fine. i'll just ask them for a new one. you move to raise your hand, getting ready to deal with the awkward confrontation with the waiter before soobin puts his hand on top of yours.

no... we're out tonight to celebrate six months of you being my girlfriend. I... I can ask them to remake this burger but without the cheese or breadcrumbs like they said they could do for you. besides... I know how stressed you've been with your semester starting.

your heart skips a beat as soobin takes a deep breath and raises his hand, a tight-lipped smile on his face as he looks around the restaurant for your waiter. you really didn't mind speaking up for yourself, it was part of being a vegan, but it really warmed your heart to see soobin doing something for you even though it made him uncomfortable.

and when he quietly and politely explained the error to the waiter, you couldn't help but be endeared by his good manners and appreciation not only for you, but for service workers.

the waiter apologized profusely for bringing a vegetarian burger instead of vegan burger to the table, heavily discounted your meal, and even offered a complimentary dessert. to which soobin inquired, are any of your desserts dairy-free?

when the answer was no, he smiled cheekily and said the two of you were fine on desserts then, which confused you until a few hours later, when you entered his apartment and noticed a table full of intricately-decorated cookies, that he assures you are vegan.

your mouth can't help but fall open in shock over the pile of handmade cookies to which soobin cheekily says, why are you so surprised? his sudden confidence charming you even more. Kai -> he feels terribly that you can't eat your meal... but the best he can do is offer emotional support and advice when your pita comes out to the table in a tray with checkered paper, it is just filled to the brim with olives. though you're not one of those people who is super picky, you have to admit you've always had a massive aversion to olives.

though you'd normally just opt to pick the olives out of the pita, there are so many throughout it, in addition to pepperoncini and copious amounts of greek dressing... in all honesty, the whole pita just has to go. it's so soggy and poorly wrapped, you really don't know how you'd even manage to eat it. you look across the table to your boyfriend, shocked to find he is nearly done with his own pita. you watch him eat for a few seconds, amused by how absorbed he is in the flavors of the pita, before he finally fishes his and almost seems to come back to earth, looking at you with a stunned expression. (y/n), is something wrong? does your stomach hurt? you shake your head, feeling a little embarrassed over the fact you can't just suck it up and eat the soggy and overloaded-with-olives pita.

oh... it's just... this is really soggy. i'm not even sure I could pick it up without it falling apart. and it's filled with olives. he sucks his teeth, soft eyes looking at you with concern. oh no! maybe you can just use a fork and knife? you furrow your brows, knowing the flaws with the pita go beyond its structural weakness. It's also just full of olives and pepperoncini... I can't really eat this... kai looks around awkwardly, pulling on the strings of his hoodie before suddenly his face lights up and he eagerly offers a solution.

how about you order something else, and i'll just eat this one?

your eyes widen at his suggestion, and you can't help but laugh. but... you don't really like olives either? and it's so messy?

he shakes his head, already pulling your soggy pita towards himself. I don't mind eating it... and just ask the waiter for the menu again and order something else... I don't want to ask them to remake anything...

you laugh as you watch him pick up a fork and knife to eat the offending pita, and catch eyes with the waiter from across the restaurant to signal him to come back to the table. at least nights out with kai always have you laughing.

LEAST

[trickstarbrave]

Actually b4 I sleep:

I see in the bg3 arguments (carried over from ppl rules lawyering 5e too hard) that if a character wants to do something it is unethical or “gross” to use persuasion rolls to convince them out of it. Examples: that you should let Astarion ascend because he wants to, or let Shadowheart become a dark justiciar because “it’s all she’s ever wanted”

These arguments are stupid.

Normally I don’t go hard on the “this is a stupid argument” bc most of the time complex moral situations require nuance and you shouldn’t try and call ppl stupid for differing perspectives but. No this one is stupid.

Persuasion rolls are not magical mind control. They are literally using the force of charisma (whole other conversation but again it isn’t mind control) to talk about something to a character and have them see it from different perspectives. High rolls are not you overriding their will power or decision making—if they rly didn’t wanna, they wouldn’t do it. You can do this for objectively horrible end goals, but also good ones.

Not to gamify real life tragedies but IRL, talking someone down from a suicide attempt would be a charisma roll (I’ve been suicidal so I’m using this example). The person really “wants” to kill themselves—or at least, they really think they do. This isn’t a choice made in a vacuum. Ultimately people want to die when they think there is no way out of their problems be it bad mental health, abuse they’re constantly subjected to, insane amounts of debt they feel they’ll never be able to pay off, social isolation, grief, and so on. It can be a combination of factors, but really what they ACTUALLY want is a solution to the problems that are overwhelming them and making them feel like being alive is worse than being dead. Talking someone down from suicide is not a BAD thing to do. In fact it would be morally bad to go “well we have to let people do what they want. Go for it man here’s a loaded gun and some pills”. But you have to persuade them to help them. Because they’re in a really dark place and can’t see reason.

Shadowheart was raised in a cult. She doesn’t actually want to be a dark justiciar, she wants to feel accomplished and like she belongs. She has been punished, isolated, and hurt her whole childhood and had her suffering justified by those in power above her. She’s been abused and told being a dark justiciar is the best thing a sharran can be. That it is the height of Shar worship. And that Shar took her in and “loved” her when “no one else wanted her”. Her ideals and goals are built upon lies and abuse. You, as an outsider, can give her that perspective and tell her that no matter how hard it gets she is worthy of love and can uncover the lies used to cover up and erase her past. She is just so narrowed in on what she thinks is “right” based on what she’s grown up with that she is not thinking for herself, she’s falling back on cult doctrine to think for her.

Astarion “wants” to ascend because he wants to feel like no one can ever hurt him again. He wants to spite Cazador. He wants to feel safe. And not worry about burning in the sun too. But are those things worth your actual fucking soul and your ability to love and connect with other people? No. Astarion doesn’t actually want the power, he doesn’t actually want to rule the world, and this power will not actually keep him safe. He has mistaken power for freedom because of 200 years of abuse and also was almost killed via human sacrifice like a minute prior (turns in dnd are only 6 seconds). He isn’t exactly thinking rationally give he’s been free for a week and nearly died a few seconds prior. He’s running on base instincts. He’s leaning into the lies Cazador has drilled into his head: the weak suffer because they are weak and the only way to be safe is to be the strongest person around. But this is an ideology that isn’t true. Cazador wasn’t safe. He wouldn’t have been safe even ascended. Astarion won’t be either. It’s literally a Faustian bargain and the game hits you over the damn head with it multiple times. Talking him out of it means you to see Astarion for who he is: as a person beyond his abuse and what makes him useful or not.

Hell, on a smaller level, Wyll wanted to kill Karlach. You can find out very easily though that she’s not actually a bad person, it’s just a technicality of Wyll’s contract. Or are you gonna say Karlach is manipulative and immoral for telling the truth and pleading for her life??? Because it’s getting in the way of what Wyll wants to do! Mizora told him she’s heartless! He’ll suffer if he doesn’t! Gale wants to blow himself up and thinks it’s the right choice, better miss out on all of act 3 because why are you trying to convince him out of it???

You can still ofc make different choices in any storyline bc this is s video game I’m not here to tell you what you can and can’t do. Just arguing “actually it’s morally bad that I have to roll persuasion—“ is a dumb argument I need people to stop making.

[the-shifting-long]

You've mentioned your dislike for HEA in several posts but I'm having a hard time pinpointing the exact source of your dislike. I've gotten the impression that you feel it's overrated (and thematically counterintuitive?) for favoring a more traditional form of intimacy in a game that built itself on depictions of non-traditional forms of intimacy. But some of your comments also gave me the impression that you mostly take issue with the dance ending being framed as romantic at all (both thematically and mechanically), as you believe it communicates something harmful about the type of relationship Princess and TLQ have by that point and in the leadup to it. I'm not sure I'm connecting all the same dots as you have and I'd like to understand your critique better.

I'll leave this as the last thing I say about it (negatively, anyways) for now, barring maybe a joke that's in the queue? Kind of tired of talking about it and there's only so much to say, lol.

My dislike of the dance is purely petty and I admit it. It feels very similar to the Thorn kiss, the Thorn kiss was already a HUGE moment in the main game, and learning it's labeled as a +2 satisfy variable in the code the same way the Thorn kiss is was like...bleghhhhh. As a scene, it's gorgeous, I'm not gonna pretend it isn't just to be a contrarian <- StP reference

I also don't think the player does enough to really earn it, in comparison to Thorn where you have to slowly get her to trust you enough to give the knife to you, and you can STILL stab her afterwards. We'll compare it to other +2 variables at the end, just for shits and giggles.

My dislike of HEA is...a lot more complicated. I'm sorry if the dots aren't quite connecting with the way I'm explaining it. I'll try and keep it concise, I know I've rambled quite a bit about it.

There's two Big Decisions the writers/narrative makes that combine into the dreaded Implication that I have vaguely referred to. These are: -Princess was badly hurt by us in previous chapters. Chapter 1 Princess hates killing us (her ending poem: "do i miss your heart because I can't stand to see it go?") Chapter 2 princess thought she was being rescued, then...suddenly wasn't. And, at the slightest hint of rejection, you brutally kill yourself in front of her. It doesn't matter that this was Smitten, because the Princess is unaware of the voices-she only sees US. And her response to that is to be incredibly welcoming to us and project all of her anxieties onto the shadow desperately trying to "make her happy" -The Smitten split. He kills us, then separates from our body, then does everything in his power to keep the Princess happy, including forcing us to sit down at the table and enjoy what he made for her. The game frames him as a literal shadow behind her, complete with a slasher-smile or grabbing at her, and some of his voice deliveries on the way to Damsel 3 are very...ominous in read and less Smitten-esque. I have beef with the execution of this-he felt very out of character in Damsel-leading-to-HEA, based on his Thorn characterization-but don't think it's bad as a concept.

Neither of these are bad artistic decision on their own, or in a vacuum. But what happens when you combine them is you get a narrative where you're...essentially rescuing a woman from the abuse you ended up putting her through, and she doesn't acknowledge you as the source of all of her pain.

It's compounded by factor after factor in HEA. You as the player are not allowed to toss around hypotheticals re: who's actually to blame for her suffering, or for this hell-dinner. You as the player are railroaded through the dinner into bonding with her-I tried to roleplay as the very asshole I'd need to be to see this route in the first place, and was still able to leave on good terms with her.

Not only is she not allowed to have any negative feelings towards the man who put her in this awful situation, just "We never really knew each other, did we?" when the princess is normally spiteful, petty, and grudge-holding, you as the player do not have much agency yourself, and unlike in Tower, Moment of Clarity, the Greys, or other routes where you've been railroaded into options by others, there is no real reason you're not allowed to say awful shit to this princess the way you are with Witch or Spectre or, hell, let's keep comparing this chapter to Thorn, the other traditional fairy-tale romance chapter.

I understand the dinner scene is a metaphor for slowly earning her trust again, making her realize you actually give a shit about her choices this time, that you aren't going to hurt one or both of you this time, but it doesn't work for me. Again, I was trying to be a dick and still managed to reassure her of these facts. It's a conversation, words without actions to back them. In Thorn, you're slowly, patiently waiting for her, then tenderly cut the vines once she gives you the means to do so. In HEA...you just...talk her through it. I guess. I understand the function of the dinner scene, that it's supposed to the be the part where you experience CONSEQUENCES for your ACTIONS and REDEEM YOURSELF to be able to leave with her...but for all the reasons above, it doesn't work for me.

The alternative being the burning of torches doesn't convince me I had choice or agency. It still requires a level of bonding with her. It still requires talking her through it.

It all combines into a narrative arc that echoes SO MUCH real-world domestic abuse, or at least domestic unhappiness, and you as the player get off scot-free and get to leave with your beloved in spite of all the pain you inflicted on her. The dance is not mandatory-you have to be a certain level of empathetic and open to her to get to dance with her-but it ends up as the icing on the bad-implications cake-and hopefully by this point it's clear what those implications are.

In case it's not, I'll rephrase it: Leaving with HEA, as the game currently presents it, felt like I was rescuing the princess from myself. Like I got to abuse her and she still loves me and it doesn't matter, because it wasn't actually me. My choices didn't matter.

It feels, in so many aspects, like a worse version of Thorn instead of a heartbreaking narrative about being trapped in a dying relationship like it's supposed to be. I wish she expressed any level of dislike for the player, because that would've sold the domestic-relationship-gone-wrong angle. I wish we were allowed to play with if the Smitten was a separate being from us or not, because that would've added so many fun layers to his actions that are left completely unexplored. And those two things would've killed the unfortunate implication that you can just...use and abuse her, but everything can still be okay between the two of you. This could've been the amicable divorce chapter. I would've loved an amicable divorce chapter. but the dance carries more weight than choosing to separate from someone you KNOW you've hurt, and who you have not meaningfully proven you won't hurt again.

anyways let's compare "dancing with the woman you've traumatized" to the other +2 variables because i do feel like being petty about that still

-Throwing the Wraith into the void is the only +2 deny variable in the main game, and the only one I'm aware of. You REALLY have to piss off the Princess to get Wraith in the first place, by killing Nightmare who's already kind of done with your shit or by throwing away your chance at redemption with Spectre, who is clearly Unkillable yet you're still trying to...and THEN you throw her into an eternal void, not even succeeding at slaying her, just to be petty. The "Why do you hate me?" line she gives after that hits so hard and perfectly explains why it's a +2 deny in comparison to other princess-slaying or princess-disappointment endings.

-Leaving with the Networked Wild is a +2 free variable, and again, the only one I'm aware of. It's such a unique ending, one where you're RIGHT at the cusp of leaving the construct itself, of course it deserves to stand out.

Which goes back to me being extremely petty re: the dance, the fact that the player has to be so unbelievably awful to the princess to see it and not do much to make up for their awfulness, and the fact that instead of the Kiss being unique, it's now All traditional romance scenes that give a +2, in a game where the devs repeatedly insist that everything is romantic/intimate/important. It's something so buried in the code it shouldn't matter, but it encapsulates so many of my issues re: Happily Ever After and it undermining previous messages re: player choices having consequences, all forms of intimacy being important, etc.

[thedragonagebigbang]

Bang Creator Interview: Tumblr: @exalted-dawn  |  AO3: Exalted_Dawn

The Collaboration period has begun! In these quiet months before works are due, we want to foster a sense of excitement, camaraderie, and celebration among our participants. To that end, all participants were given the option of a formal interview by our mod, Dema, or an informal “ask-game” survey. We hope you enjoy getting to know our phenomenal creators as much as we have!

Interview with Exalted Dawn

Ed and Dema talk collaboration, developing a personal style, and a bunch of stuff Dema had to redact but is leaving in to build suspense. 

Dema: I know in the beginning you were debating whether to participate as a writer or an artist, and you went with artist. What was the main driver of that decision?

Ed: It was definitely a combination of a few things. Workload and time allotment being the main influencing factors. My attention span when it comes to writing tends to be a bit all or nothing. I can have periods where I can churn out one thousand words in an hour and then go like two weeks without writing anything at all 😂 And then on top of it, with the new game coming out I was sorta trying to factor in how that would affect my ability to stick to a schedule. Drawing is a lot easier for me to sort of one and done over a weekend so I figured it might be better to start there for my first Bang.

Dema: Oh this is your first Big Bang! I don't think I knew that 😂

Ed: YUP LOL

Dema: When you do a collaboration like this, that isn't a commission but is based on another person's work, how do you navigate that process?

Ed: Well, from a starting standpoint, I really like to have a lot of communication with the person I am partnered with. I love collaboration work and really strive to capture the energy of whatever source material I'm working from. So getting the author’s opinions on their own story beats is a huge help. But aside from that, the element of choice in this sort of project definitely played a part. I got to choose a prompt that fascinated me, and then from there, I read through the material the author currently had and chose a few scenes that really struck me with a strong mental image. Something that when I read it, I immediately thought "Oh that would be neat to see in a picture!" From there, it’s back to touching base with the author and making sure that what ideas I have sorta line up with their vision. I want to make sure its respectful of the work its being based on, while still sorta playing to my own interests as an artist and a fan :3

Dema: You're a very prolific artist, how do you keep all these ideas organized? Do they behave themselves up there in your brain?

Ed: HAH! I would like to say that there's some sort of rhyme and reason to my creative process, but if I were being honest, they mostly tumble about in my brain. When I get stuck on an idea, I tend to fixate on it and continue to develop it in my head the more I think on it. With this prompt specifically, I was immediately hit with this idea of a vibe I wanted to get across in my art from the moment I read it. And then that continued to build and build, until I was left with these pretty complete ideas,  accompanied by atmosphere and layout, that I became stuck on. After that, I just laid them out on paper. (The bounty of inspiration certainly didn't help to make the decision easy XD)

Dema: Are you drawing inspiration from anywhere besides the source material for this piece?

Ed: I AM! There were several pieces my mind immediately went to when I was reading through the source material. Lord of the Rings (specifically the cinematic scenery of the Mines of Moria) and The Song Of The Sea were both big ones that I drew immediate parallels to. The huge scale and vast landscapes as well as the beautiful pattern work and 2D story book style typical of Cartoon Saloon’s work were both things I immediately latched onto for this. But more abstractly, having just read [REDACTED], I was already in the mindset of [REDACTED] when I got assigned to this prompt. Since this one is also leaning into the [REDACTED] genre, it sorta pushed me towards these concepts of strong lighting contrast— stark shadows played against bright light. Bold silhouettes.  I was even considering playing with a black and white inked style with colored accents and a heavy focus on crosshatching to get that sort of [REDACTED] look at one point.

Dema: Mmmmmmm how much of that am I gunna have to redact 😂[narrator voice: it was a lot]

Ed: You can totally just delete the second half if that helps XD

Dema: I don't want to DELETE it I'm just gunna redact it haha. IT'S FINE. Also I love that. Sin City vibes.

Ed: YEAH!

Dema: How did you develop your personal style?

Ed: Many years of frustrated grunting at my own artwork kjdhfhjsgvfd LOL no but actually, what I consider to be most typical of 'my style' (and for this question, I'm going with the main illustrative style I typically use for projects like this, since I definitely have multiple) came about pretty much by accident for the most part. I basically stumbled upon it. I had spent many MANY years developing my skills from, like, middle school up through college, first with pencil and paper and then with a very large desk mounted display tablet, and was sort of trying to get to a point where I was satisfied with the look of my own work. It was a slow process, and I hadn't really been satisfied with my progress and where I was. In an attempt to sort of switch back to the more familiar feeling of pencil and paper, I had gotten an ipad to draw on since it was of a more similar size. I had been playing around with it, and was struggling with the pressure settings on my pen for making line art specifically, so I sorta just threw my hands up in the air and said "Y'know what?! I'm gonna try lineless cause why not!" I made this small, lineless doodle of my Dungeons & Dragons character at the time, and suddenly it all just sorta clicked into place! I've been basically drawing like that ever since, but with the aforementioned handful of stylistic exceptions XD

Dema: What do you feel like you are striving for in your body of work? Or I guess, is there a theme or a feeling or a "spirit" in your work you're hoping to convey?

Ed: HMMMMMMMMMMM THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION! I wouldn't really say I'm striving for any single theme all throughout my work (part of the reason why I have multiple distinct styles is so that I can really draw out the desired vibes I'm aiming for in each individual piece). But from a general sense, I think I tend to focus a lot on capturing emotion and atmosphere, especially in the lighting and color I use. As for the spirit I often capture— I don't think it's super intentional on my part, but for my lineless artwork specifically, I definitely get that there is this sort of adventurous, almost whimsical spirit to a lot of what I draw. Rather than dark dramatic pieces, with lots of sharp lines and dynamic movement, there's this sort of softness and quietness to a lot of my work, like capturing a peaceful moment between all the big dramatic stuff. Even for the tonally and visually 'dark' pieces. Which— honestly— I think speaks a lot more to my own personality and preferences than I maybe intend 🤣

Dema: I love that a lot. Thank you for such thoughtful answers, and for taking the time to be interviewed today! I can't wait to see the final piece.

[ilynpilled]

I think what bugs me the most about the type of analysis that is common in this fandom is that sometimes people are obsessed with not actually looking at choices being made by characters and instead try to project extra-textual symbolism/parallels they pulled out of thin air or use essentialist arguments to predict a certain character’s trajectory. There is already a weird tendency to blame bloodlines instead of institutions, oppressive/destructive social constructs/systems, and abusive cycles. This series repeatedly deconstructs bio essentialist ideas in a multitude of ways. Characters being viewed as monsters for the way they are born is a concept that is repeatedly torn down. There is a combination of nature & nurture at play with these characters, I admit, but it is nuanced. Your environment and your nature are in constant conversation with each other. Certain environmental factors will worsen certain attributes, while repress others etc. Your blood is not evil, nor is it pure, it just is, and your nature will be affected by your rearing, tragedies you face, and the environment you live in. Monsters are created and developed, not born. This whole concept is apparent with all the siblings in the series. Dany & Viserys are drastically different people, and make different choices despite having similar experiences and the same blood. Same can be said for Joff, Myrcella, and Tommen. Another very good example are the Lannister siblings. The twins’ idea of “one soul in two bodies” is deconstructed, and they are faced with how dissimilar they actually are. All three siblings have differences in nature, as revealed by their behavior as young children & their current values and motivations, and they are all shaped very differently by their environment. Cersei is affected by the oppressive system of the patriarchy, Jaime by the trauma due to the violent construct of knighthood, and Tyrion by the rampant ableism of the world around him. Tywin also shapes them by giving each of them their own flavor of parental abuse based on the role he wants them to play in his legacy. It is so apparent just how these characters became what they are, and how they navigate their world as a result of a nuanced combination of nature and nurturer. But in the end, it comes down to choices that they keep making. Characters on the right path can also falter sometimes, weigh their values wrong, and make bad decisions at certain points. Not to mention how thoughts and words do not speak as much as actions and actual choices that are made do. You all take bio essentialist arguments that some characters in the text make at face value, even when it is obviously bullshit. Any analysis that hinges entirely on “this character is the son/daughter of this character”, or “this thing on the surface parallels this other thing from something I read/watched”, “this character is a dragon. Dragons plant no trees”, “this character is a monster”, “this character is from this house”, “this character is related to this character” etc instead of actually looking at what said characters do or try to do is gonna lead to unconvincing arguments that are antithetical to one of the main ideas that this series is built on. To me it feels like these books are communicating that in spite of your birth, your origin, your trauma, your prophecies, etc it is primarily your choices that lead you to where you are and the legacy that you create. Cersei’s prophecy will come true as a result of the choices she makes. Dany’s many prophecies are also as a result of choices she makes, she was not just gifted with everything that she has achieved, she is an active agent who makes choices that push her a certain direction. This is also why it is weird when everybody wants to make characters have a predetermined trajectory solely based on “what” they are, or who they are related to.

Not only does George say this in interviews, it is an explicit thesis statement in the text itself:

This is the concluding statement of Jaime’s ASoS arc. Like “The things I do for love”, “So many vows...”, and “The heroes […] the best and the worst, and those who were a bit of both”, as extremely relevant it is to him in specific, it is a major thesis statement for the series as whole, and overlaps with many characters, just like how other characters also have a bunch of these overlapping arc theses. So can we please primarily look at the choices characters make and what ultimately motivated them to make these choices rather than thinking their ending and what they “are” as characters is set in stone because of the reasons mentioned. I feel like how you all engage with some of these characters contradicts the deconstruction of this kind of essentialism that is so apparent in these books.

[dailyanarchistposts]

I.1.2 Is libertarian communism impossible?

In a word, no. While the “calculation argument” (see last section) is often used by propertarians (so-called right-wing “libertarians”) as the basis for the argument that communism (a moneyless society) is impossible, it is based on certain false ideas of what prices do, the nature of the market and how a communist-anarchist society would function. This is hardly surprising, as Mises based his theory on a variation of neo-classical economics and the Marxist social-democratic (and so Leninist) ideas of what a “socialist” economy would look like. So there has been little discussion of what a true (i.e. libertarian) communist society would be like, one that utterly transformed the existing conditions of production by workers’ self-management and the abolition of both wage-labour and money. However, it is useful here to indicate exactly why communism would work and why the “calculation argument” is flawed as an objection to it.

Mises argued that without money there was no way a socialist economy would make “rational” production decisions. Not even Mises denied that a moneyless society could estimate what is likely to be needed over a given period of time (as expressed as physical quantities of definite types and sorts of objects). As he argued, “calculation in natura in an economy without exchange can embrace consumption-goods only.” His argument was that the next step, working out which productive methods to employ, would not be possible, or at least would not be able to be done “rationally,” i.e. avoiding waste and inefficiency. The evaluation of producer goods “can only be done with some kind of economic calculation. The human mind cannot orient itself properly among the bewildering mass of intermediate products and potentialities without such aid. It would simply stand perplexed before the problems of management and location.” Thus we would quickly see “the spectacle of a socialist economic order floundering in the ocean of possible and conceivable economic combinations without the compass of economic calculation.” [“Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”, pp. 87–130, Collectivist Economic Planning, F.A. von Hayek (ed.), p. 104, p. 103 and p. 110] Hence the claim that monetary calculation based on market prices is the only solution.

This argument is not without its force. How can a producer be expected to know if tin is a better use of resources than iron when creating a product if all they know is that iron and tin are available and suitable for their purpose? Or, if we have a consumer good which can be made with A + 2B or 2A + B (where A and B are both input factors such as steel, oil electricity, etc.) how can we tell which method is more efficient (i.e. which one used least resources and so left the most over for other uses)? With market prices, Mises’ argued, it is simple. If A cost $10 and B $5, then clearly method one would be the most efficient ($20 versus $25). Without the market, Mises argued, such a decision would be impossible and so every decision would be “groping in the dark.” [Op. Cit., p. 110]

Mises’ argument rests on three flawed assumptions, two against communism and one for capitalism. The first two negative assumptions are that communism entails central planning and that it is impossible to make investment decisions without money values. We discuss why each is wrong in this section. Mises’ positive assumption for capitalism, namely that markets allow exact and efficient allocation of resources, is discussed in section I.1.5.

Firstly, Mises assumes a centralised planned economy. As Hayek summarised, the crux of the matter was “the impossibility of a rational calculation in a centrally directed economy from which prices are necessarily absent”, one which “involves planning on a most extensive scale — minute direction of practically all productive activity by one central authority”. Thus the “one central authority has to solve the economic problem of distributing a limited amount of resources between a practically infinite number of competing purposes” with “a reasonable degree of accuracy, with a degree of success equally or approaching the results of competitive capitalism” is what “constitutes the problem of socialism as a method.” [“The Nature and History of the Problem”, pp. 1–40, Op. Cit., p. 35, p. 19 and pp. 16–7]

While this was a common idea in Marxian social democracy (and the Leninism that came from it), centralised organisations are rejected by anarchism. As Bakunin argued, “where are the intellects powerful enough to embrace the infinite multiplicity and diversity of real interests, aspirations, wishes, and needs which sum up the collective will of the people? And to invent a social organisation that will not be a Procrustean bed upon which the violence of the State will more or less overtly force unhappy society to stretch out?” Moreover, a socialist government, “unless it were endowed with omniscience, omnipresence, and the omnipotence which the theologians attribute to God, could not possibly know and foresee the needs of its people, or satisfy with an even justice those interests which are most legitimate and pressing.” [Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 268–9 and p. 318] For Malatesta, such a system would require “immense centralisation” and would either be “an impossible thing to achieve, or, if possible, would end up as a colossal and very complex tyranny.” [At the Café, p. 65]

Kropotkin, likewise, dismissed the notion of central planning as the “economic changes that will result from the social revolution will be so immense and so profound … that it will be impossible for one or even a number of individuals to elaborate the social forms to which a further society must give birth. The elaboration of new social forms can only be the collective work of the masses.” [Words of a Rebel, p. 175] The notion that a “strongly centralised Government” could ”command that a prescribed quantity” of a good “be sent to such a place on such a day” and be “received on a given day by a specified official and stored in particular warehouses” was not only “undesirable” but also “wildly Utopian.” During his discussion of the benefits of free agreement against state tutelage, Kropotkin noted that only the former allowed the utilisation of “the co-operation, the enthusiasm, the local knowledge” of the people. [The Conquest of Bread, pp. 82–3 and p. 137]

Kropotkin’s own experience had shown how the “high functionaries” of the Tsarist bureaucracy “were simply charming in their innocent ignorance” of the areas they were meant to be administrating and how, thanks to Marxism, the socialist ideal had “lost the character of something that had to be worked out by the labour organisations themselves, and became state management of industries — in fact, state socialism; that is, state capitalism.” As an anarchist, he knew that governments become “isolated from the masses” and so “the very success of socialism” required “the ideas of no-government, of self-reliance, of free initiative of the individual” to be “preached side by side with those of socialised ownership and production.” Thus it was essential that socialism was decentralised, federal and participatory, that the “structure of the society which we longed for” was “worked out, in theory and practice, from beneath” in by “all labour unions” with “a full knowledge of local needs of each trade and each locality.” [Memoirs of a Revolutionist, p. 184, p. 360, p. 374–5 and p. 376]

So anarchists can agree with Mises that central planning cannot work in practice as its advocates hope. Or, more correctly, Mises agreed with the anarchists, as we had opposed central planning first. We have long recognised that no small body of people can be expected to know what happens in society and plan accordingly (“No single brain nor any bureau of brains can see to this organisation.” [Issac Puente, Libertarian Communism, p. 29]). Moreover, there is the pressing question of freedom as well, for “the despotism of [the ‘socialist’] State would be equal to the despotism of the present state, increased by the economic despotism of all the capital which would pass into the hands of the State, and the whole would be multiplied by all the centralisation necessary for this new State. And it is for this reason that we, the Anarchists, friends of liberty, we intend to fight them to the end.” [Carlo Cafiero, “Anarchy and Communism”, pp. 179–86, The Raven, No. 6, p. 179]

As John O’Neill summarises, the “argument against centralised planning is one that has been articulated within the history of socialist planning as an argument for democratic and decentralised decision making.” [The Market, p. 132] So, for good economic and political reasons, anarchists reject central planning. This central libertarian socialist position feeds directly into refuting Mises’ argument, for while a centralised system would need to compare a large (“infinite”) number of possible alternatives to a large number of possible needs, this is not the case in a decentralised system. Rather than a vast multitude of alternatives which would swamp a centralised planning agency, one workplace comparing different alternatives to meet a specific need faces a much lower number of possibilities as the objective technical requirements (use-values) of a project are known and so local knowledge will eliminate most of the options available to a small number which can be directly compared.

As such, removing the assumption of a central planning body automatically drains Mises’ critique of much of its force — rather than an “the ocean of possible and conceivable economic combinations” faced by a central body, a specific workplace or community has a more limited number of possible solutions for a limited number of requirements. Moreover, any complex machine is a product of less complex goods, meaning that the workplace is a consumer of other workplace’s goods. If, as Mises admitted, a customer can decide between consumption goods without the need for money then the user and producer of a “higher order” good can decide between consumption goods required to meet their needs.

In terms of decision making, it is true that a centralised planning agency would be swamped by the multiple options available to it. However, in a decentralised socialist system individual workplaces and communes would be deciding between a much smaller number of alternatives. Moreover, unlike a centralised system, the individual firm or commune knows exactly what is required to meet its needs, and so the number of possible alternatives is reduced as well (for example, certain materials are simply technically unsuitable for certain tasks).

Mises’ other assumption is equally flawed. This is that without the market, no information is passed between producers beyond the final outcome of production. In other words, he assumed that the final product is all that counts in evaluating its use. Needless to say, it is true that without more information than the name of a given product it is impossible to determine whether using it would be an efficient utilisation of resources. Yet more information can be provided which can be used to inform decision making. As socialists Adam Buick and John Crump point out, “at the level of the individual production unit or industry, the only calculations that would be necessary in socialism would be calculations in kind. On the one side would be recorded the resources (materials, energy, equipment, labour) used up in production and on the other the amount of good produced, together with any by-products… . Socialist production is simply the production of use values from use values, and nothing more.” [State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management, p. 137] Thus any good used as an input into a production process would require the communication of this kind of information.

The generation and communication of such information implies a decentralised, horizontal network between producers and consumers. This is because what counts as a use-value can only be determined by those directly using it. Thus the production of use-values from use-values cannot be achieved via central planning, as the central planners have no notion of the use-value of the goods being used or produced. Such knowledge lies in many hands, dispersed throughout society, and so socialist production implies decentralisation. Capitalist ideologues claim that the market allows the utilisation of such dispersed knowledge, but as John O’Neill notes, “the market may be one way in which dispersed knowledge can be put to good effect. It is not … the only way”. “The strength of the epistemological argument for the market depends in part on the implausibility of assuming that all knowledge could be centralised upon some particular planning agency” he stresses, but Mises’ “argument ignores, however, the existence of the decentralised but predominantly non-market institutions for the distribution of knowledge … The assumption that only the market can co-ordinate dispersed non-vocalisable knowledge is false.” [Op. Cit., p. 118 and p. 132]

So, in order to determine if a specific good is useful to a person, that person needs to know its “cost.” Under capitalism, the notion of cost has been so associated with price that we have to put the word “cost” in quotation marks. However, the real cost of, say, writing a book, is not a sum of money but so much paper, so much energy, so much ink, so much human labour. In order to make a rational decision on whether a given good is better for meeting a given need than another, the would-be consumer requires this information. However, under capitalism this information is hidden by the price.

Somewhat ironically, given how “Austrian” economics tends to stress that the informational limitations are at the root of its “impossibility” of socialism, the fact is that the market hides a significant amount of essential information required to make a sensible investment decision. This can be seen from an analysis of Mises’ discussion on why labour-time cannot replace money as a decision-making tool. Using labour, he argued, “leaves the employment of material factors of production out of account” and presents an example of two goods, P and Q, which take 10 hours to produce. P takes 8 hours of labour, plus 2 units of raw material A (which is produced by an hour’s socially necessary labour). Q takes 9 hours of labour and one unit of A. He asserts that in terms of labour P and Q “are equivalent, but in value terms P is more valuable than Q. The former is false, and only the later corresponds to the nature and purpose of calculation.” [“Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”, Op. Cit., p. 113]

The flaw in his argument is clear. Assuming that an hour of socially necessary labour is £10 then, in price terms, P would have £80 of direct labour costs, with £20 of raw material A while Q would have £90 of direct labour and £10 of A. Both cost £100 so it hard to see how this “corresponds to the nature and purpose of calculation”! Using less of raw material A is a judgement made in addition to “calculation” in this example. The question of whether to economise on the use of A simply cannot be made using prices. If P, for example, can only be produced via a more ecologically destructive process than Q or if the work process by which P is created is marked by dull, mindless work but Q’s is more satisfying for the people involved than Q may be considered a better decision. Sadly, that kind of information is not communicated by the price mechanism.

As John O’Neill points out, “Mises’ earlier arguments against socialist planning turned on an assumption about commensurability. His central argument was that rational economic decision-making required a single measure on the basis of which the worth of alternative states of affairs could be calculated and compared.” [Ecology, Policy and Politics, p. 115] This central assumption was unchallenged by Taylor and Lange in their defence of “socialism”, meaning that from the start the debate against Mises was defensive and based on the argument that socialist planning could mimic the market and produce results which were efficient from a capitalist point of view.

Anarchists question whether using prices means basing all decision making on one criterion and ignoring all others is a rational thing to do. As O’Neill suggests, “the relative scarcity of items … hardly exhaust the full gamut of information that is distributed throughout society which might be relevant to the co-ordination of economic activities and plans.” [The Market, p. 196] Saying that a good costs £10 does not tell you much about the amount of pollution its production or use generates, under what conditions of labour it was produced, whether its price is affected by the market power of the firm producing it, whether it is produced in an ecologically sustainable way, and so forth. Similarly, saying that another, similar, good costs £9 does not tell you whether than £1 difference is due to a more efficient use of inputs or whether it is caused by imposing pollution onto the planet.

And do prices actually reflect costs? The question of profit, the reward for owning capital and allowing others to use it, is hardly a cost in the same way as labour, resources and so on (attempts to explain profits as an equivalent sacrifice as labour have always been ridiculous and quickly dropped). When looking at prices to evaluate efficient use for goods, you cannot actually tell by the price if this is so. Two goods may have the same price, but profit levels (perhaps under the influence of market power) may be such that one has a higher cost price than another. The price mechanism fails to indicate which uses least resources as it is influenced by market power. Indeed, as Takis Fotopoulos notes, ”[i]f … both central planning and the market economy inevitably lead to concentrations of power, then neither the former nor the latter can produce the sort of information flows and incentives which are necessary for the best functioning of any economic system.” [Towards an Inclusive Democracy, p. 252] Moreover, a good produced under a authoritarian state which represses its workforce could have a lower price than one produced in a country which allowed unions to organise and has basic human rights. The repression would force down the cost of labour, so making the good in question appear as a more “efficient” use of resources. In other words, the market can mask inhumanity as “efficiency” and actually reward that behaviour by market share.

In other words, market prices can be horribly distorted in that they ignore quality issues. Exchanges therefore occur in light of false information and, moreover, with anti-social motivations — to maximise short-term surplus for the capitalists regardless of losses to others. Thus they distort valuations and impose a crass, narrow and ultimately self-defeating individualism. Prices are shaped by more than costs, with, for example, market power increasing market prices far higher than actual costs. Market prices also fail to take into account public goods and so bias allocation choices against them not to mention ignoring the effects on the wider society, i.e. beyond the direct buyers and sellers. Similarly, in order to make rational decisions relating to using a good, you need to know why the price has changed for if a change is permanent or transient implies different responses. Thus the current price is not enough in itself. Has the good become more expensive temporarily, due, say, to a strike? Or is it because the supply of the resource has been exhausted? Actions that are sensible in the former situation will be wrong in the other. As O’Neill suggests, “the information [in the market] is passed back without dialogue. The market informs by ‘exit’ — some products find a market, others do not. ‘Voice’ is not exercised. This failure of dialogue … represents an informational failure of the market, not a virtue … The market … does distribute information … it also blocks a great deal.” [Op. Cit., p. 99]

So a purely market-based system leaves out information on which to base rational resource allocations (or, at the very least, hides it). The reason for this is that a market system measures, at best, preferences of individual buyers among the available options. This assumes that all the pertinent use-values that are to be outcomes of production are things that are to be consumed by the individual, rather than use-values that are collectively enjoyed (like clean air). Prices in the market do not measure social costs or externalities, meaning that such costs are not reflected in the price and so you cannot have a rational price system. Similarly, if the market measures only preferences amongst things that can be monopolised and sold to individuals, as distinguished from values that are enjoyed collectively, then it follows that information necessary for rational decision-making in production is not provided by the market. In other words, capitalist “calculation” fails because private firms are oblivious to the social cost of their labour and raw materials inputs.

Indeed, prices often mis-value goods as companies can gain a competitive advantage by passing costs onto society (in the form of pollution, for example, or de-skilling workers, increasing job insecurity, and so on). This externalisation of costs is actually rewarded in the market as consumers seek the lowest prices, unaware of the reasons why it is lower (such information cannot be gathered from looking at the price). Even if we assume that such activity is penalised by fines later, the damage is still done and cannot be undone. Indeed, the company may be able to weather the fines due to the profits it originally made by externalising costs (see section E.3). Thus the market creates a perverse incentive to subsidise their input costs through off-the-book social and environmental externalities. As Chomsky suggests:

“it is by now widely realised that the economist’s ‘externalities can no longer be consigned to footnotes. No one who gives a moment’s thought to the problems of contemporary society can fail to be aware of the social costs of consumption and production, the progressive destruction of the environment, the utter irrationality of the utilisation of contemporary technology, the inability of a system based on profit or growth-maximisation to deal with needs that can only be expressed collectively, and the enormous bias this system imposes towards maximisation of commodities for personal use in place of the general improvement of the quality of life.” [Radical Priorities, pp. 190–1]

Prices hide the actual costs that production involved for the individual, society, and the environment, and instead boils everything down into one factor, namely price. There is a lack of dialogue and information between producer and consumer.

Moreover, without using another means of cost accounting instead of prices how can supporters of capitalism know there is a correlation between actual and price costs? One can determine whether such a correlation exists by measuring one against the other. If this cannot be done, then the claim that prices measure costs is a tautology (in that a price represents a cost and we know that it is a cost because it has a price). If it can be done, then we can calculate costs in some other sense than in market prices and so the argument that only market prices represent costs falls. Equally, there may be costs (in terms of quality of life issues) which cannot be reflected in price terms.

Simply put, the market fails to distribute all relevant information and, particularly when prices are at disequilibrium, can communicate distinctly misleading information. In the words of two South African anarchists, “prices in capitalism provided at best incomplete and partial information that obscured the workings of capitalism, and would generate and reproduce economic and social inequalities. Ignoring the social character of the economy with their methodological individualism, economic liberals also ignored the social costs of particular choices and the question of externalities.” [Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt, Black Flame, p. 92] This suggests that prices cannot be taken to reflect real costs any more that they can reflect the social expression of the valuation of goods. They are the result of a conflict waged over these goods and those that acted as their inputs (including, of course, labour). Market and social power, much more than need or resource usage, decides the issue. The inequality in the means of purchasers, in the market power of firms and in the bargaining position of labour and capital all play their part, so distorting any relationship a price may have to its costs in terms of resource use. Prices are misshapen.

Little wonder Kropotkin asked whether “are we not yet bound to analyse that compound result we call price rather than to accept it as a supreme and blind ruler of our actions?” [Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 71] It is precisely these real costs, hidden by price, which need to be communicated to producers and consumers for them to make informed and rational decisions concerning their economic activity.

It is useful to remember that Mises argued that it is the complexity of a modern economy that ensures money is required: “Within the narrow confines of household economy, for instance, where the father can supervise the entire economic management, it is possible to determine the significance of changes in the processes of production, without such aids to the mind [as monetary calculation], and yet with more or less of accuracy.” However, “the mind of one man alone — be it ever so cunning, is too weak to grasp the importance of any single one among the countlessly many goods of higher order. No single man can ever master all the possibilities of production, innumerable as they are, as to be in a position to make straightway evident judgements of value without the aid of some system of computation.” [Op. Cit., p. 102]

A libertarian communist society would, it must be stressed, use various “aids to the mind” to help individuals and groups to make economic decisions. This would reduce the complexity of economic decision making, by allowing different options and resources to be compared to each other. Hence the complexity of economic decision making in an economy with a multitude of goods can be reduced by the use of rational algorithmic procedures and methods to aid the process. Such tools would aid decision making, not dominate it as these decisions affect humans and the planet and should never be made automatically.

That being the case, a libertarian communist society would quickly develop the means of comparing the real impact of specific “higher order” goods in terms of their real costs (i.e. the amount of labour, energy and raw materials used plus any social and ecological costs). Moreover, it should be remembered that production goods are made up on inputs of other goods, that is, higher goods are made up of consumption goods of a lower order. If, as Mises admits, calculation without money is possible for consumption goods then the creation of “higher order” goods can be also achieved and a record of its costs made and communicated to those who seek to use it.

While the specific “aids to the mind” as well as “costs” and their relative weight would be determined by the people of a free society, we can speculate that it would include direct and indirect labour, externalities (such as pollution), energy use and materials, and so forth. As such, it must be stressed that a libertarian communist society would seek to communicate the “costs” associated with any specific product as well as its relative scarcity. In other words, it needs a means of determining the objective or absolute costs associated with different alternatives as well as an indication of how much of a given good is available at a given it (i.e., its scarcity). Both of these can be determined without the use of money and markets.

Section I.4 discusses possible frameworks for an anarchist economy, including suggestions for libertarian communist economic decision-making processes. In terms of “aids to the mind”, these include methods to compare goods for resource allocation by indicating the absolute costs involved in producing a good and the relative scarcity of a specific good, among other things. Such a framework is necessary because “an appeal to a necessary role for practical judgements in decision making is not to deny any role to general principles. Neither … does it deny any place for the use of technical rules and algorithmic procedures … Moreover, there is a necessary role for rules of thumb, standard procedures, the default procedures and institutional arrangements that can be followed unreflectively and which reduce the scope for explicit judgements comparing different states of affairs. There are limits in time, efficient use of resources and the dispersal of knowledge which require rules and institutions. Such rules and institutions can free us for space and time for reflective judgements where they matter most.” [John O’Neill, Ecology, Policy and Politics, pp. 117–8] It is these “rules and institutions need themselves to be open to critical and reflective appraisal.” [O’Neill, The Market, p. 118]

Economic decisions, in other words, cannot be reduced down to one factor yet Mises argued that anyone “who wished to make calculations in regard to a complicated process of production will immediately notice whether he has worked more economically than others or not; if he finds, from reference to the exchange values obtaining in the market, that he will not be able to produce profitably, this shows that others understand how to make better use of the higher-order goods in question.” [Op. Cit., pp. 97–8] However, this only shows whether someone has worked more profitably than others, not whether it is more economical. Market power automatically muddles this issue, as does the possibility of reducing the monetary cost of production by recklessly exploiting natural resources and labour, polluting, or otherwise passing costs onto others. Similarly, the issue of wealth inequality is important, for if the production of luxury goods proves more profitable than basic essentials for the poor does this show that producing the former is a better use of resources? And, of course, the key issue of the relative strength of market power between workers and capitalists plays a key role in determining “profitably.”

Basing your economic decision making on a single criteria, namely profitability, can, and does, lead to perverse results. Most obviously, the tendency for capitalists to save money by not introducing safety equipment (“To save a dollar the capitalist build their railroads poorly, and along comes a train, and loads of people are killed. What are their lives to him, if by their sacrifice he has saved money?” [Emma Goldman, A Documentary History of the American Years, vol. 1, p. 157]). Similarly, it is considered a more “efficient” use of resources to condemn workers to deskilling and degrading work than “waste” resources in developing machines to eliminate or reduce it (“How many machines remain unused solely because they do not return an immediate profit to the capitalist! … How many discoveries, how many applications of science remain a dead letter solely because they don’t bring the capitalist enough!” [Carlo Cafiero, “Anarchy and Communism”, pp. 179–86, The Raven, No. 6, p. 182]). Similarly, those investments which have a higher initial cost but which, in the long run, would have, say, a smaller environmental impact would not be selected in a profit-driven system.

This has seriously irrational effects, because the managers of capitalist enterprises are obliged to choose technical means of production which produce the cheapest results. All other considerations are subordinate, in particular the health and welfare of the producers and the effects on the environment. The harmful effects resulting from “rational” capitalist production methods have long been pointed out. For example, speed-ups, pain, stress, accidents, boredom, overwork, long hours and so on all harm the physical and mental health of those involved, while pollution, the destruction of the environment, and the exhaustion of non-renewable resources all have serious effects on both the planet and those who live on it. As green economist E. F. Schumacher argued:

“But what does it mean when we say that something is uneconomic? . .. [S]omething is uneconomic when it fails to earn an adequate profit in terms of money. The method of economics does not, and cannot, produce any other meaning … The judgement of economics … is an extremely fragmentary judgement; out of the large number of aspects which in real life have to be seen and judged together before a decision can be taken, economics supplies only one — whether a money profit accrues to those who undertake it or not.” [Small is Beautiful, pp. 27–8]

Schumacher stressed that “about the fragmentary nature of the judgements of economics there can be no doubt whatever. Even with the narrow compass of the economic calculus, these judgements are necessarily and methodically narrow. For one thing, they give vastly more weight to the short than to the long term… [S]econd, they are based on a definition of cost which excludes all ‘free goods’ … [such as the] environment, except for those parts that have been privately appropriated. This means that an activity can be economic although it plays hell with the environment, and that a competing activity, if at some cost it protects and conserves the environment, will be uneconomic.” Moreover, ”[d]o not overlook the words ‘to those who undertake it.’ It is a great error to assume, for instance, that the methodology of economics is normally applied to determine whether an activity carried out by a group within society yields a profit to society as a whole.” [Op. Cit., p. 29]

To claim that prices include all these “externalities” is nonsense. If they did, we would not see capital moving to third-world countries with few or no anti-pollution or labour laws. At best, the “cost” of pollution would only be included in a price if the company was sued successfully in court for damages — in other words, once the damage is done. Ultimately, companies have a strong interest in buying inputs with the lowest prices, regardless of how they are produced. In fact, the market rewards such behaviour as a company which was socially responsible would be penalised by higher costs, and so market prices. It is reductionist accounting and its accompanying “ethics of mathematics” that produces the “irrationality of rationality” which plagues capitalism’s exclusive reliance on prices (i.e. profits) to measure “efficiency.”

Ironically enough, Mises also pointed to the irrational nature of the price mechanism. He stated (correctly) that there are “extra-economic” elements which “monetary calculation cannot embrace” because of “its very nature.” He acknowledged that these “considerations themselves can scarcely be termed irrational” and, as examples, listed ”[i]n any place where men regard as significant the beauty of a neighbourhood or a building, the health, happiness and contentment of mankind, the honour of individuals or nations.” He also noted that “they are just as much motive forces of rational conduct as are economic factors” but they “do not enter into exchange relationships.” How rational is an economic system which ignores the “health, happiness and contentment” of people? Or the beauty of their surroundings? Which, moreover, penalises those who take these factors into consideration? For anarchists, Mises comments indicate well the inverted logic of capitalism. That Mises can support a system which ignores the needs of individuals, their happiness, health, surroundings, environment and so on by “its very nature” says a lot. His suggestion that we assign monetary values to such dimensions begs the question and has plausibility only if it assumes what it is supposed to prove. [Op. Cit., p. 99–100] Indeed, the person who would put a price on friendship simply would have no friends as they simply do not understand what friendship is and are thereby excluded from much which is best in human life. Likewise for other “extra-economic” goods that individual’s value, such as beautiful places, happiness, the environment and so on.

So essential information required for sensible decision making would have to be recorded and communicated in a communist society and used to evaluate different options using agreed methods of comparison. This differs drastically from the price mechanism as it recognises that mindless, automatic calculation is impossible in social choices. Such choices have an unavoidable ethical and social dimension simply because they involve other human beings and the environment. As Mises himself acknowledged, monetary calculation does not capture such dimensions.

We, therefore, need to employ practical judgement in making choices aided by a full understanding of the real social and ecological costs involved using, of course, the appropriate “aids to the mind.” Given that an anarchist society would be complex and integrated, such aids would be essential but, due to its decentralised nature, it need not embrace the price mechanism. It can evaluate the efficiency of its decisions by looking at the real costs involved to society rather than embrace the distorted system of costing explicit in the price mechanism (as Kropotkin once put it, “if we analyse price” we must “make a distinction between its different elements”. [Op. Cit., p. 72]).

In summary, then, Mises considered only central planning as genuine socialism, meaning that a decentralised communism was not addressed. Weighting up the pros and cons of how to use millions of different goods in the millions of potential situations they could be used would be impossible in a centralised system, yet in decentralised communism this is not an issue. Each individual commune and syndicate would be choosing from the few alternatives required to meet their needs. With the needs known, the alternatives can be compared — particularly if agreed criteria (“aids to the mind”) are utilised and the appropriate agreed information communicated.

Efficient economic decision making in a moneyless “economy” is possible, assuming that sufficient information is passed between syndicates and communes to evaluate the relative and absolute costs of a good. Thus, decisions can be reached which aimed to reduce the use of goods in short supply or which take large amounts of resources to produce (or which produce large externalities to create). While a centralised system would be swamped by the large number of different uses and combinations of goods, a decentralised communist system would not be.

Thus, anarchists argue that Mises was wrong. Communism is viable, but only if it is libertarian communism. Ultimately, though, the real charge is not that socialism is “impossible” but rather that it would be inefficient, i.e., it would allocate resources such that too much is used to achieve specified goals and that there would be no way to check that the allocated resources were valued sufficiently to warrant their use in the first place. While some may portray this as a case of planning against markets (no-planning), this is false. Planning occurs in capitalism (as can be seen from any business), it is a question of whether capitalism ensures that more plans can be co-ordinated and needs meet by means of relative prices and profit-loss accounting than by communism (free access and distribution according to need). As such, the question is does the capitalist system adds additional problems to the efficient co-ordination of plans? Libertarian communists argue, yes, it does (as we discuss at length in section I.1.5).

All choices involve lost possibilities, so the efficient use of resources is required to increase the possibilities for creating other goods. At best, all you can say is that by picking options which cost the least a market economy will make more resources available for other activities. Yet this assumption crucially depends equating “efficient” with profitable, a situation which cannot be predicted beforehand and which easily leads to inefficient allocation of resources (particularly if we are looking at meeting human needs). Then there are the costs of using money for if we are talking of opportunity costs, of the freeing up of resources for other uses, then the labour and other resources used to process money related activities should be included. While these activities (banking, advertising, defending property, and so forth) are essential to a capitalist economy, they are not needed and unproductive from the standpoint of producing use values or meeting human need. This would suggest that a libertarian communist economy would have a productive advantage over a capitalist economy as the elimination of this structural waste intrinsic to capitalism will free up a vast amount of labour and materials for socially useful production. This is not to mention the so-called “costs” which are no such thing, but relate to capitalist property rights. Thus “rent” may be considered a cost under capitalism, but would disappear if those who used a resource controlled it rather than pay a tribute to gain access to it. As Kropotkin argued, “the capitalist system makes us pay for everything three or four times its labour value” thanks to rent, profit, interest and the actions of middle men. Such system specific “costs” hide the actual costs (in terms of labour and resource use) by increasing the price compared to if we “reckon our expenses in labour”. [Op. Cit., p. 68]

Moreover, somewhat ironically, this “economising” of resources which the market claims to achieve is not to conserve resources for future generations or to ensure environmental stability. Rather, it is to allow more goods to be produced in order to accumulate more capital. It could be argued that the market forces producers to minimise costs on the assumption that lower costs will be more likely to result in higher profits. However, this leaves the social impact of such cost-cutting out of the equation. For example, imposing externalities on others does reduce a firm’s prices and, as a result, is rewarded by the market however alienating and exhausting work or rising pollution levels does not seem like a wise thing to do. So, yes, it is true that a capitalist firm will seek to minimise costs in order to maximise profits. This, at first glance, could be seen as leading to an efficient use of resources until such time as the results of this become clear. Thus goods could be created which do not last as long as they could, which need constant repairing, etc. So a house produced “efficiently” under capitalism could be a worse place to live simply because costs were reduced by cutting corners (less insulation, thinner walls, less robust materials, etc.). In addition, the collective outcome of all these “efficient” decisions could be socially inefficient as they reduce the quality of life of those subject to them as well as leading to over-investment, over-production, falling profits and economic crisis. As such, it could be argued that Mises’ argument exposes more difficulties for capitalism rather than for anarchism.

Finally, it should be noted that most anarchists would question the criteria Hayek and Mises used to judge the relative merits of communism and capitalism. As the former put it, the issue was “a distribution of income independent of private property in the means of production and a volume of output which was at least approximately the same or even greater than that procured under free competition.” [“The Nature and History of the Problem”, Op. Cit., p. 37] Thus the issue is reduced to that of output (quantity), not issues of freedom (quality). If slavery or Stalinism had produced more output than free market capitalism, that would not make either system desirable This was, in fact, a common argument against Stalinism during the 1950s and 1960s when it did appear that central planning was producing more goods (and, ironically, by the propertarian right against the welfare state for, it should be remembered, that volume of output, like profitability and so “efficiency”, in the market depends on income distribution and a redistribution from rich to poor could easily result in more output becoming profitable). Similarly, that capitalism produces more alcohol and Prozac to meet the higher demand for dulling the minds of those trying to survive under it would not be an argument against libertarian communism! As we discuss in section I.4, while anarchists seek to meet material human needs we do not aim, as under capitalism, to sacrifice all other goals to that aim as capitalism does. Thus, to state the obvious, the aim for maximum volume of output only makes sense under capitalism as the maximum of human happiness and liberty may occur with a lower volume of output in a free society. The people of a society without oppression, exploitation and alienation will hardly act in identical ways, nor seek the same volume of output, as those in one, like capitalism, marked by those traits!

Moreover, the volume of output is a somewhat misleading criteria as it totally ignores its distribution. If the bulk of that volume goes to a few, then that is hardly a good use of resources. This is hardly an academic concern as can be seen from the Hayek influenced neo-liberalism of the 1980s onwards. As economist Paul Krugman notes, the value of the output of an average worker “has risen almost 50 percent since 1973. Yet the growing concentration of income in the hands of a small minority had proceeded so rapidly that we’re not sure whether the typical American has gained anything from rising productivity.” This means that wealth have flooded upwards, and “the lion’s share of economic growth in America over the past thirty years has gone to a small, wealthy minority.” [The Conscience of a Liberal, p. 124 and p. 244]

To conclude. Capitalist “efficiency” is hardly rational and for a fully human and ecological efficiency libertarian communism is required. As Buick and Crump point out, “socialist society still has to be concerned with using resources efficiently and rationally, but the criteria of ‘efficiency’ and ‘rationality’ are not the same as they are under capitalism.” [Op. Cit., p. 137] Under communist-anarchism, the decision-making system used to determine the best use of resources is not more or less “efficient” than market allocation, because it goes beyond the market-based concept of “efficiency.” It does not seek to mimic the market but to do what the market fails to do. This is important, because the market is not the rational system its defenders often claim. While reducing all decisions to one common factor is, without a doubt, an easy method of decision making, it also has serious side-effects because of its reductionistic basis. The market makes decision making simplistic and generates a host of irrationalities and dehumanising effects as a result. So, to claim that communism will be “more” efficient than capitalism or vice versa misses the point. Libertarian communism will be “efficient” in a totally different way and people will act in ways considered “irrational” only under the narrow logic of capitalism.

For another critique of Mises, see Robin Cox’s “The ‘Economic Calculation’ controversy: unravelling of a myth” [Common Voice, Issue 3]

[earthstellar]

Beast Wars - Integrating Bot and Beast, Processor and Spark: What Defines the Cybertronian Sense of Personal Identity? An Analysis

"Once, we were merely robots in disguise! But on this planet, we Maximals have become something more. Maximal programming was designed to block our beast urges, but that has proven to be an error.

Our beast forms are part of us. Fighting our nature only made them stronger. We must accept both beast and robot forms.

Feel your core consciousness, find the programming block, and delete it!

Bring your beast and robot forms together! Let them work in harmony! And let them both make you stronger than you were before."

-Tigatron, Call of the Wild, S1 E19 Beast Wars

---

There isn't much elaboration as to what "core consciousness" refers to, but we can assume it's the core of a Cybertronian's being and contains the basest elements of their personality etc., which suggests this may be both spark and processor related--In humans, our frontal lobe is where much of our decision making and opinion forming takes place, and that can be a significant part of someone's individual personality!

In Cybertronians, in various continuities, it is implied that the spark contains one's unique personal elements, what makes you, you.

In IDW 1, the reason why mnemosurgery is so frightening (in part, at least) is because it can alter your personality via altering your memories or by otherwise influencing your thoughts from that point onward-- So that is perhaps equally as significant as the individual's spark, in terms of personal identity.

Your experiences as a person help form who you are as an individual, just as much as your unique "spark" does.

Your life is unique, and what happens in it, how you perceive and experience those events, how those things change you and grow you into your own person, are also unique to you. On a mental level, we are all unique. Even if many people experience the same event, each individual person may perceive that event differently, with different feelings and understandings of what happened.

Likewise, physically, we are all unique-- Even though we are all the genetic product of our parents and ancestors, with epigenetic elements factoring in as well, this only serves to further individualise us.

Personal identity is a complex subject, and we don't have much clarity in most TF canon as to how Cybertronians may experience, contextualise, or define this-- And when it is touched upon as a subject, it tends to vary from continuity to continuity in various ways.

However, with a focus on Beast Wars, Call of the Wild addresses a potential incongruity between Beast and Bot modes; There is a conflict between the Cybertronian aspects of self, and the Beast aspects of self.

An innate clash between organic and mechanical.

As Tigatron states, there is a coding component to this clash: "Find the programming block, and delete it!"

This suggests there may be difficulty integrating organic/beastmode sense of self (the more base, animalistic organic instincts) with the more complex Cybertronian thought processes,which are mechanical in nature.

Whether a Cybertronian's "core consciousness" may be defined as being spark based, processor based, or both is not entirely clarified; However in other TF continuities like IDW 1, special importance is placed on a spark's individual or unique properties-- Such as with the Point One Percenters, which are noted for having particularly rare or unique aspects to their sparks.

So it may well be a combination of both, although in Beast Wars this is unclear.

Either way, it seems (at lest in Beast Wars) as though bots with beastmodes may have some difficulty integrating their separate modes, mechanical root mode and beast alt-mode-- And if these two distinct halves of the self are not integrated successfully, this may lead to losing one's sense of self to one's base organic instincts: Going feral.

Tigatron's method of resolving this issue and what he recommends to the others suggests there is a conscious, mental component to this: One can fight through the haze of organic animal behaviour, and make an effort to allow one's

It isn't actually 100% clear what this means, though!

How do the two aspects of self actually integrate? What are the implications of this for the individual, how does this potentially alter the singular sense of one's self identity? Is a new "self" produced, one that is equally organic and mechanical? How might this change their perception, thought processes, behaviour, etc?

The implications of this are huge, which is why I find it so interesting.

Having a beastmode may in and of itself alter one's sense of self and personal identity all together; Thought processes may be unique, may not be entirely Cybertronian, may not be entirely organic, a special blend of two vastly different natures within a single entity.

It varies based on continuity: There are some bots who were forged or otherwise created with beastmodes. There are some bots from colony worlds in which beastmodes are the default alt-modes. And there are some bots who obtain beastmodes later in life, long after their initial sense of self has been developed.

The concern in Call of the Wild comes from the concept that the bots are losing their Cybertronian sense of identity and upper/complex cognitive processes, as their frames adapt and seemingly develop a preference for their beastmode base instinctual behaviours beyond their conscious control.

The idea that this is even a possibility for Cybertronians with beastmodes is fascinating, and how any ultimate internal resolution or cohesive integration of organic and mechanical aspects of self actually occurs (and the total impact of that on the individual) is left undefined in any further detail.

After this, mostly things return to normal--But Tigatron notes that achieving this integration is something that makes them stronger.

This is likely referring to both a physical and mental stability that occurs once a beastformer has reconciled the differences between their modes of being, but it's not 100% clear if this may have other implications-- For example, there may possibly be increased physical strength or agility when one is more in-sync with their beast alt-mode, or one may be better able to utilise their enhanced sensory suite (playing off of the traits of whatever their beastmode might be), and so on.

If one fails to integrate their different modes, it is implied that they are then resigned to acting out their most base organic/animal instincts, unable to access their higher processing or Cybertronian root mode functions.

Essentially, beastmodes can potentially go feral.

And that's pretty wild to think about.

[arachnicas]

Spider & Spot Dynamic Headcanons 1/?

Based off of my post >>> here

-) The multi-verse collapses and Miles is thrown back in time to the day he defeated Kingpin. Determined not to repeat the future, Miles decides to seek out the Spot and end his villainy before it can begin. However, he does not eradicate or contain his nemesis. No, Miles takes a leap of faith and decides to help him.

-) Miles uses his big brain to find a way to permanently cure Dr. Johnathon Ohnn of his spotty appearance with a serum. However, Johnathon still retains his abilities, and his eyes are an eerie void black color, a reminder of what he is and what he is capable of. Still, he's back to looking like a human being again and is immensely grateful to this wonderful, genius kid for helping him in his time of need.

-) In fact, he's so happy that he immediately declares himself Spider-Man's partner, and Miles cannot reject the man. His former friends are in their respective dimensions safe now that the collider is destroyed, and if the future becomes anything like Miles remembers, he won't see them for a long while. It would be nice to have a friend on his side.

-) After some trial and error, Johnathon can easily control his abilities, using his holes to warp villains into Miles' webs or transporting himself and Miles away from dangers when dealing with particularly deadly villains. With their combined skills and hilarious wit, the duo instantly becomes Brooklyn's darlings almost overnight.

-) Johnathon's costume is based on his former spotty appearance. When Miles asked why, he grinned and said, "Makes for a superb intimidation factor, kiddo. Gets the baddies shaking in their little boots when they see me."

-) Johnathon and Miles both know each other's secret identities. Johnathon made it clear to Miles that if their partnership should work, he should at least see the face of the hero he's working with. No secrets. No lies. Miles agreed and slid off his mask.

-) Needless to say, Johnathon was appalled, concerned, and maybe even a little impressed that Spider-Man is a thirteen-year-old kid. "I mean, when you threw that bagel at me, I knew you were young, but holy cow, you're just a little guy! You should be in school doing your homework and hanging out with your friends, not running the streets fighting bad guys!"

-) Knowing that Spider-Man is just a kid made Johnathon even more sure of his decision to be his partner. Miles will need a stable adult to look out for him and somebody to make damn sure that he comes home alive. It's the least he can do for the kid who helped him get his life back on track. Plus, he's grown fond of Miles and enjoys fighting alongside him. This superhero gig isn't so bad after all.

-) Over time, the two developed a pseudo-uncle-nephew familial relationship, and while Johnathon isn't Uncle Aaron, Miles finds that they have a lot in common and will often spend hours talking about quantum physics, math, etc. They even built an underground lair where they go to rest up, work on science projects, and make neat little gizmos. Miles proudly called it "The Web," but after losing a game of rock paper scissors to Uncle Johnathon, it was renamed The Void Sanctum.

-) Helping Miles with his science homework pushed Johnathon into getting a job at Visions Academy as a science teacher because, damn it, what kind of weak-ass science is that school teaching his nephew?! No, he will become a goddamn teacher and teach these kids REAL science. And this way, he can finally distance himself from Alchemax and get a job doing something he loves. Teaching.

-) Johnathon wanted to make an excellent first impression on his first day at Visions and showed up to work in a tweed suit, squeaky shoes, and a lab coat. The students cracking jokes about his clothes were to be expected, and Miles was starting to get annoyed with them for their constant needling, but all laughter died when Mr. Ohnn made something explode. From then on, he was the school's most revered science teacher.

-) Visions loves him so much that they don't even ask why he wears sunglasses that hide his scary inky black eyes that sometimes leak dark matter. Nah, they don't need to see what's behind the glasses.

-) Johnathon uses his powers to travel across different dimensions with Miles, where they get into all sorts of whacky adventures. It's the most fun they've ever had, and the pair bring back all kinds of trinkets and decorations from their travels to hang up in their super cool lair.

"Miles, is that an alien head encased in ice?"

"Oh, yeah! Uncle Johnathon and I found this bad boy in some creepy desert dimension! I don't think we were supposed to take it, but Unc wanted to turn it into a new decoration for his desk."

"Miles, that thing just blinked."

"Yeah, it does that sometimes."

-) The walls in Miles' room are decorated with colorful equations done by Johnathon, and Johnathon's office space has drawings Miles gifted to him. Maybe he's not an artist like his nephew, but he's proud of the kid's works and will always show visitors what Miles drew.

-) Having learned from his past mistakes, Miles decided to reveal himself as Spider-Man to his parents, and as expected there were tears, ultimatums, more tears, and finally acceptance. Jeff and Rio were also told about Johnathon, and after some hesitation and promises to keep them informed about their son, they permitted the duo to keep working together...so long as Johnathon stopped by every Sunday for family dinners and continued to help Miles stay on top of his studies.

-) Their dimension travels have caused them to meet certain members of the Spider Society much earlier, but that's a story for another day.

[vigilskeep]

curious on your ostagar opinions as a player—i’m personally on the side of “ostagar wasn’t anyone’s fault, including loghain’s, though some people cailin couldve minimized the loss better than they did”, (though i still hold loghain very accountable for the way he handles the ferelden civil war and the slavery), but i know you spared him in your main playthrough

ostagar’s an interesting one and it’s taken me a while to develop my thoughts on it. battles are by nature complicated and chaotic and hard to pin down to one factor—there’s a reason real medieval war leaders tended to avoid them if possible—but here’s some thoughts

1. the push to confront the darkspawn as quickly as possible, even when troops from amaranthine, redcliffe, orlais, etc. had not yet arrived. both cailan and loghain seem responsible for this. cailan is reckless and confident, unconcerned with the idea of facing the darkspawn without reinforcements, and loghain actively vetoes the idea of waiting for orlesian reinforcements. as i recall it’s primarily duncan who wants to wait but the grey wardens are on shaky footing and he doesn’t have the influence to press that. if it hadn’t been for loghain’s insistence, cailan might well have waited for the orlesians, but if cailan hadn’t called for the orlesians, maybe loghain would be the one counselling to wait for redcliffe and amaranthine. neither should loghain’s fears of the orlesians be written off as unreasonable imo like yes his choice here went badly but it wasn’t based on unfounded prejudice and there’s no way to know what might have happened

2. the beacon was delayed and mistimed. this isn’t anyone’s fault except the darkspawn. alistair and the warden were supposed to light the beacon at a particular time, but instead of that being an easy job, the tower has been suddenly overrun by the time they get there. alistair comments as you fight through the tower that you’ve probably missed the signal and should light the beacon just, like, as soon as you get up there. this chaos must have affected decisions taken on the ground and, as the main change from the original battle plan, was possibly why the beacon was delayed enough that loghain considered there no longer to be any chance of saving cailan

3. alistair says at flemeth’s hut that he has no idea why loghain would turn away, and that the king’s forces “had nearly defeated” the darkspawn. i’ll make allowances for his perspective being somewhat affected by the losses he’s just suffered, but his judgements are generally very good on this kind of thing and i trust them. i don’t see any reason to write this off, especially combined with other witness accounts. i do believe him that there was a real possibility to win here

4. at flemeth’s hut, all anyone can guess is that loghain wanted the throne—men’s hearts hold shadows darker than any tainted creature, and all that—but there’s no sign of this in loghain later in the game, although supporters of his like howe may have wanted that as an end goal. there’s nothing ambitious in loghain, there’s no intent to betray. loghain claims he remembers “a fool’s death and a hard choice” and that “the darkspawn would either have had him or have had us all”. it seems odd that he consistently blames cailan’s foolishness when it was a battle plan he had agreed to and nothing really changes on cailan’s part, but cailan’s recklessness and lack of care for battle plans is thoroughly set up in the ostagar prologue and i imagine it affected how he was handling things during the battle and also the aforementioned failures to get all of ferelden’s forces there in time. nonetheless my point is that this was purely a tactical decision on loghain’s part, and he regretted cailan’s loss (even if he blamed cailan for it). so either he genuinely thought the battle could not be won, or that it would mean enough losses that it would not be worth winning. and i trust his judgements too—battle leadership and strategy is his whole skillset

SO where does all that leave us. i think ultimately my perspective on the battle, which i think gives it a reasonable balance and a reasonable way to argue both sides, is that if loghain had followed the plan they would have won and cailan and duncan might have lived. thus, loghain can be considered responsible. however it would have left ferelden with significantly higher casualties. loghain’s men would have been lost as well as the king’s. ferelden would have been in an even worse state than it already was, and that with a) a blight still ongoing, since the archdemon was not present at ostagar, and b) a whole orlesian army of reinforcements on the way, with no-one to stop them at the border, and who with ferelden’s defences completely crippled might well fight the darkspawn just like the grey wardens wanted... and then find reason to stick around. celene was obviously trying to regain orlesian influence in ferelden with her letters to cailan, and there are several pieces of minor dialogue in da2 which openly threaten the possibility of orlais retaking ferelden in the aftermath of the blight’s destruction. could they really resist the temptation if their armies had the excuse to already be there? ferelden hasn’t even been free for as long as it was under orlesian rule

(as a side note, me sparing loghain in my main playthrough isn’t me being a Loghain Was Right truther and certainly doesn’t mean i or my warden absolve him of his actions during the blight, especially towards the alienage. ‘is loghain right/morally salvageable?’ isn’t really the decision my warden makes at the landsmeet; it’s ‘is it more important to kill a man for doing evil or to let him live to do good?’. it’s ‘is it more important to publicly make a peaceful compromise or to make a strong statement against my enemies and in favour of my allies?’ more personally to my warden, it’s ‘i have fought so hard all this time so that everyone will know someone like me can save ferelden, but how will the history books remember me if i become the elven mage who killed the hero of river dane?’ those are all far more interesting and relevant considerations to explore for me narratively than assigning blame)

[damnation-valley]

FNV Characters Through The Lens Of Tarot Archetypes: Part 1

courtesy of @asynchronouscommunication

i've shortly covered The Fool and The World in this post, the former in more detail, so i will likely try to do 3 parts with 7 Major Arcana in each (so 21 in total, excluding The Fool). also it's to be noted that this is not "fnv characters as major arcana", mostly because i connect a character with an archetype while highlighting specific aspects of both, as there obviously can never be a perfect match. that being said i do have a lot of thoughts about the concept of a full fnv-themed tarot deck bouncing around in my brain (mostly bc the official fo4 tarot deck sucks BIG time in terms of character to card relevancy and even BIGGER time in terms of any actual symbolism (as in there is zero)) but that will come much much later if at all and i will also not be revealing the full notes on that because it's likely that this project will come into reality at least partially (aka just the major arcana)

also: this will be based off of the most commonly known Waite tarot, partially because i think Al*ster Cr*wley was a dick and partially because i genuinely do not have the energy to explain to myself and everyone here the metric tons of symbolism the Thoth tarot has to yall

anyway ramble over let's begin

I - The Magician - Arcade Gannon

This seems to be a universal conclusion among all the people even remotely interested in combining fallout and tarot, and i honestly agree! The Magician, above all else, is about creation and knowledge - inquisitive, motivated and competent, in his upright position he moves towards his goals with certainty and enthusiasm, always exploring the new and incorporating it into his framework of operations. There are two limiting factors, however, which can hinder his journey - doubt and pride, as demonstrated in his reversed position. Both of these can be seen in Arcade in very different contexts, for he is doubtful about his abilities and endeavors, but takes great pride in his ideals and beliefs, which sometimes can be quite a negative. This is best demonstrated by two moments in dialogue with him that both occur in your first meeting in the Fort - his attitude towards his research vs. his thoughts on what future is best for New Vegas and surrounding territories. He's very explicitly characterised as an idealist (and i almost wish that side of him had been explored a bit more in terms of how the courier engages with it), yet one who's not confident in himself at all and often prefers a more passive approach within his community. With this, he possesses not only The Magician's strengths, but also his weaknesses and struggles, making him more than fit to be represented by this archetype.

II - The High Priestess / The Papess - Chrisrine Royce

Here is where things get more complicated. I've thought about The High Priestess for a long time, both separately in conjunction with The Hierophant, as these two cards are connected in much the same way as The Empress and The Emperor. While the latter pair represents all things earthly in their mundane reality human passion (more on them below), the former are more focused on "the above": the arcane knowledge, the subconscious, the unknown. As such, who better to represent those aspects than the Brotherhood? As The Hierophant's counterpart, The High Priestess represents knowledge itself as the ultimate goal, rather than the dogmas and laws stemming from that knowledge. In her upright position, this resonates with Christine's already strikingly vast knowledge of various technology both known to the Brotherhood and not, which is only broadened by her visit to the Big Empty and eventual residence in the Sierra Madre. At the same time, the reasons that led her there resonate much more with the reversed High Priestess - one where her patience and attentiveness dissipates, leaving behind blinded judgement and subpar decision-making. Still, in her journey Christine manages to achieve closure and, in a way, a sort of peace as the 'warden' of the cursed casino. And I think it's there that she is fully realised as The High Priestess - knowing, subtle and mystical, yet inevitably static, almost as if suspended in time and space.

AANNNNDDD tumblr posted my unfinished draft AGAIN whatever i'll do a part 1.5 where i'll do all the rest

lmk your thoughts or whatever

[moodcrab]

Fixing Skyrim's Civil War

The Holds need to feel like they're genuinely at war. In other words the difference between Stormcloak and Empire held territory should be acknowledged by the game. 

The game's opening makes a big deal about border jumping, then it's never mentioned again. The difficulty of border crossing should depend on several factors. Traveling by main road in Skyrim is generally easier, but the borders should be way harder. We're talking "Papers Please" levels of security, with New Vegas style speech checks. Sure you can run or fight your way through, enjoy the bounty in ALL the holds on this side of the war though. Country trails and dirt paths will be less organised, more frontier justice style, a mid level crossing difficulty. You'll have to deal with outposts akin to the camps you see in vanilla. Crossing through the wilderness will see the least resistance, unless you run into a scout or ranger, but even then it's just your word (or sword) against theirs, one on one. Racial differences should also play a factor. So You're and Imperial or Altmer crossing into Stormcloak lands, yeah we're going to give you some obstacles at the border, sorry not sorry this is war. They may assume a Khajiit is part of a caravan or a Dunmer is a refugee, for instance.

Wearing your side's uniform behind enemy lines should be an attack on sight offense, even in cities. On the other hand, a disguise could be implemented, but race and reputation should factor into its effectiveness. Going "plain clothed" being the safest option for general travel, but this would restrict you from enemy camps and buildings.

Victory

So you've won the war for the Stormcloaks. What now? Does the Penitus Oculatus still operate from Dragonsbridge? Does the East Empire Company still trade from both Solitude and Windhelm? Does the Dark Brotherhood story, which is almost entirely dependent on the civil war being unresolved, not change one iota? Do the Thalmor still have an Embassy and a Prison in Skyrim? What about all the Thalmor agents wondering around arresting people, or the one at the College, are they still welcome? Do ALL the exiled Jarls just sit in a basement in the Blue Palace forever? In vanilla Skyrim the answer is inexplicably "Yes."

And that's just the problems with a Stormcloak victory.

Skyrim has a real issue with not allowing the consequences of your actions affect the rest of the game, but it's most shocking with the civil war. By winning the war for either side, you should be eliminating a lot of potential content, which Bethesda doesn't want you to miss. 

To my mind their are several ways around this. Firstly, completely re-writing whole quest lines to accommodate either outcome, basically tripling the amount of scripted quests available, a neutral, Stormcloak and Imperial plotline. This is wholly impractical. Second, delay the players direct influence in the war until a certain point, be it a story point or a level cap, to limit potential conflicts with other plots. This would require restraint on Bethesda's part. Thirdly, interweave the civil war with every other faction and the main story, so instead of the player choosing a team and literally joining that army, they have many chances to influence the war's outcome one way or the other before they have to declare for one side or the other (again, like New Vegas). 

Ideally though, it would be a combination of all three options. For example: instead of having two sides to join (and inevitably win the war for), you will have many opportunities during gameplay to nudge the war in favour of the Stormcloaks, the Empire, both, neither or towards yourself (Implementing a reputation system would help greatly with this). You may come out of the gate as a Empire supporter and go all in, or make decisions based on the situation at hand. This will be presented naturally as you do side quests, the main story and faction stories. Making an all out decision on who to actively fight for will come later. This gives you a more natural feel to the civil war and give you so much roleplaying scope. Do you as Harbinger or Archmage get your faction involved in the war? Do you betray the side you're on and seize power for yourself (as a Dragonborn is want to do)? Or, and this is the interesting bit, do you make too many bad decisions and end up losing the war?

Imagine that. The game actually allowing you to fail at something. What is the world like for you now, champion of the vanquished side? Does Skyrim become a punishing land, where guards are biased against you and traders inflate their prices, if they allow you trade at all? Do you accept defeat or begin a resistance movement? Bethesda gets so carried away with it's power fantasy that it restricts itself from some really interesting role playing possibilities.

[ezralva]

that’s one of the ships i like so its okay! thats why i don’t want judgement as someone who understands him in canon and having siblings as well. i know it’s not actually happening in the manga but i do like canon elements to support the ships i like if that makes sense?? its easy to make the devotion into more in au. but that doesn’t mean i am into that irl or that i am projecting that onto choso and cannot separate!! thats why i am admitting on anon. i hope it stays here :/

No worries! We're real adults around here so we don't judge people for what they like or do in fiction with their fictional characters and just mind our own business. Yes, healthy minds can easily separate which things are canon which are fanon, which things should stay only in fiction and which are fine to be irl.

I totally get that cuz I also like it better when a ship has some bases we can extract from canon, usually the chemistry and the devotion they show to each other are the most decisive factors for me. I like AUs as well. In that sense, post-canon is also AU cuz they are outside canon-realm. My latest fic about them is modern AU without curses. Tho knowing me, I still linked them with canon so reincarnation AU.

It's totally up to you ofc to stay anon and be discreet about it. Tho imo, doing that may offer you less chances to have fun with it or interact with others who share the same interest. I just happen to be the type who loudly express what I like in whichever form I can manage lol. I'm pretty sure most, if not all, choita shippers are chill adults who can put proper filter in real life between brotherly love and romantic love. We appreciate both choso and yuuji and understand their characters as well. But when there are 2 fictional characters we like, have great chemistry, and look great together when being combined, sometimes we just can't help but ship them don't we? 😂 especially in a work that has no room for romance like shounen. It's also not helping that Choso's character is shaped to only have eyes and heart for his little brothers and was even officially declared to love his little brothers more than anything. LOL

Fiction is meant for entertainment and fictional chara are meant to be molded the way we want so as long as it doesn't harm yourself or real people then just like whatever you like and do whatever pleases you. It's that simple, so you definitely don't have to 'admit' or being made to feel like you will be judged and thus need to explain yourself :)

[seth-shitposts]

Alex💙:

~These are points that have most certainly been touched on before by others, I'm just musing over the thoughts and analysis again~

Currently just thinking about how between s2e14 to s2e17 Kallus was most certainly at his lowest point.

The man has made failure after failure, and then even to the point where the laws of nature and physics were on his side, that there was no logical way The Ghost Crew should've been able to escape, he had them pinned to an exploded starcluster. And then they still managed to pull a miraculous win over him.

By the end of s2e14, no one had challenged him, especially not to the point where the mere existence and survival of The Ghost Crew had.

And it wasn't just his personal pride and abilities that were being challenged. Kallus had a harsh reminder about where repeated failure will lead you back in s1e13 when Moff Tarkin had the Grand Inquisitor dispose of Grint & Aresko, whose inability to handle the same rebels was giving allowance for dangers against the Empire. Their repeated failure proved that they were of no more use to the empire.

So, by the start of s2e14, with the combination of these factors Kallus knew he was running low on chances and was currently running on borrowed time. So for him to have had them pinned, with no possible way for escape, if he couldn't capture them, he would ensure that they will be destroyed, only for them to still escape. He came to another harsh realization. He was never going to succeed.

So the mission on the base above Geonosis was not one he was planning on actually working. He only had a couple dozen men with him compared to all the resources he had previously. His goal and purpose for this was that if he was going to be going down, he was going to make damn sure he dragged at least one of the ghost crew down with him. And it was going to be the one that he was most obsessed with, had a more intense connection to.

And this most certainly wasn't the first time he's thrown caution to the wind for a desperate attempt. (As his actions/words back in s1e3, to me, seemed... very rash and reckless, even if for a logical one up to provoking Zeb. What he said itself made sense to do for its purpose, but there was much tone and energy around it that was not of sound m decision making.)

A portion of Kallus’s The Empire Is Growing spiel felt that he wasn't just trying to convince Zeb, and it's not that he didn't believe it himself and was trying to convince himself of it, but maybe felt more like grasping for straws.

---I may come back later and continue my thoughts. I've run out of time, but there's several layers to the significance of Zeb and Kallus’s interactions, especially on Bahryn, but not limited to Bahryn.---

Seth💚:I gotchu- In other words, Kallus hit his lowest point, got trapped on Bahryn with Zeb, Zeb called him a coward, and then Zeb triple dog dared him to actually take a moment to have a single critical thought go through his brain.

[thatsonemorbidcorvid]

All types of hormonal contraceptives carry a small increased risk of breast cancer, according to research establishing a link with progestogen pills for the first time.

The use of progestogen is associated with a 20-30% higher risk of breast cancer, data analysis by University of Oxford researchers has established. This builds on previous work showing that use of the combined contraceptive pill, which contains oestrogen and progestogen, is associated with a small increase in the risk of developing breast cancer that declines after stopping taking it.

Claire Knight of Cancer Research UK, which funded the study, said the risk was small and should not discourage most people from taking the pill.

She said: “Women who are most likely to be using contraception are under the age of 50, where the risk of breast cancer is even lower. For anyone looking to lower their cancer risk, not smoking, eating a healthy balanced diet, drinking less alcohol, and keeping a healthy weight will have the most impact.

“There are lots of possible benefits to using contraception, as well as other risks not related to cancer. That’s why deciding to take them is a personal choice and should be done after speaking to your doctor so you can make a decision that is right for you.”

The research, which was published in PLOS Medicine, is based on data from 9,498 women who developed invasive breast cancer between ages 20 to 49, and 18,171 closely matched women without breast cancer.

The scientists found that 44% of women with breast cancer and 39% of women without breast cancer had a prescription for a hormonal contraceptive an average of three years before diagnosis, about half of whom were last prescribed a progestogen-only contraceptive.

The researchers estimated that the absolute excess risk of developing breast cancer over a 15-year period in women with five years’ use of oral contraceptives ranged from eight in 100,000 women for use from the age of 16 to 20, to 265 in 100,000 for use from the age of 35 to 39. They also found that the increased risk of breast cancer gradually declined in the years after stopping taking the pill.

Kirstin Pirie, a statistical programmer at Oxford Population Health and one of the lead authors, said that as breast cancer risk increased with age, younger women may consider the risk sufficiently small that it is outweighed by the benefits of contraceptive use during their reproductive years.

The findings are important as progestogen-only contraception is growing in popularity, with prescription levels matching those of combined oral contraceptives in 2020.

Dr Kotryna Temcinaite, the head of research communications at Breast Cancer Now, said there were some limitations to the study: “The study didn’t look at what hormonal contraceptives the women may have used in the past or consider how long they may have been on the progestogen-only contraception.

“It also didn’t factor in whether a family history of the disease contributed to their level of risk. So further work is needed to help us fully understand the impact of using this type of contraception.”

She added: “Breast cancer is rare in young women. A slight increase in risk during the time a woman uses hormonal contraceptive means only a small number of extra cases of the disease are diagnosed.”

[2346khith]

List of canon changes in my au.

So I did a post something similar to this one about how my au is different from the canon but this time it going to less structure and more rant like. I am not trying to compare my au to the neatherrealm timeline or trying to be a better writer than NRS just making an au for fun.

.Kind of a change to my au (I kind of forgot what I did previously with the timeline.) This follows the event similarly to the original timeline but only the arcade era and after that it sort of stagnates a little bit into being a fusion of mkx and deception but that not set in stone. Different factors from different timelines will be implemented depending on how much I like them.

.Kung lao is similar to his mk1 counterpart but more humble

. Raiden is more based on the 95 movie raiden and dotr raiden

.Kenshi joined the special forces much earlier and did so out personal reasons with his mother side of the family being held captive by the black dragon through the yakuza

.Kenshi has his Eurasian background from the og timeline

.Johnny and Sonya are married permanently. The did just get married because Sonya was pregnant but the did fall in love while having Cassie. It was messy trying to raise her as either had any experience dealing with kids but they learned along the way

. Frost real name here is Holly (yes I know that not her canon name this is canon changes to an au and yes I know the name is stupid and lazy but I busy with homework and job hunting so cut me some slack)

.Frost does compete in underground fighting but there not hosted by the black dragon and there no to the death fights

.Johnny , Sonya and Liu Kang are all closed friends (there still the first fighters for earthrealm) who hang out a lot of the time. Johnny enjoys dragging Sonya and Liu around Hollywood, Sonya acts like the one in charge and makes sure the boys aren't in any trouble and Liu is the peacekeeper and makes sure neither Johnny nor Sonya are overly stressed out

.Syzoth currently in the story appears reptilian up until the outworld's invasion where he gets stranded in earthrealm and has to take a human disguise

.Mileena is a clone but unlike her original counterparts, after multiple arcs that I have not even begun to write out yet, they Kitana accepts her as her sister

.Jerrod is inside of Ermac but he never takes control of the collective and is more like Ermac conscience guiding him into specific decisions like protecting Kitana

.Wraiths appear more human the more time the spend out of the neatherrealm but wraith like appearances will show up if there distress or with highten emotions

. Just like in mkx Erron Black is an immortal cowboy who travels all over the realm and is currently the only person besides raiden to hop onto different realms though he not will the share that information with anybody.

. Instead of Suarians originating from earthrealm and moving to zaterria, it the opposite way around with them being originally from zaterria but after outworld invade fleed to earthrealm and hid refugee underground. As the stayed in earthrealm, the evolved to become more versitile in shapeshifting to a point where they can mimic powers which leads to the creation of Khameleon

. Sektor is female while Cyrax is male. Sektor did have some romantic relation with Bi Han for a short while but it end very quickly

. Jax is a little bit older than the rest of the earthrealm fighters(something along the lines of early 30s to most earthrealm fighters early to mid 20s)

.Quan chi is more powerful. What I mean by that is that he could probably take an army on by himself with little to no resistance and he be a lot more powerful than scorpion and noob saibot combine

. Before finding Bi han or Kuai Liang, Sareena found Cyrax first and managed to bring the humanity out of him from... I don't know attacking his lingering soul which caused it to take control on his mechanical body and now have a sort of alliance with each other

. Vaterrians aren't extinct or endangered but are used a slaves until Nitara started a revolution

. Saibot has free will and acts as his own entity

.In the future events when the kombat kids form Cassie is more along the lines of a wrestler while Jacaqui fights with tech. Inspired by @zxid art of them and concept art of Cassie.

. Skarlet is raised with Kitana and Mileena and while she doesn't exactly turn to the side of good with Kitana and Mileena, she does remain neutral and has a okay sisterly relationship with them

.The only difference between a a demons true form and human disguise is that of appearance. Physically and power wise there the exact same no matter which form their at

.Shao is a god just like raiden

.D'vorah doesn't exist here. Kytinn exist here and are minor race but D'vorah isn't here

.Kotal does exist and was a general for Shao but he doesn't try to take the thrown of kahn instead was more interested in finding and regrouping his people

. Shujinko doesn't become an old man

.currently Ashrah had the kris but has not made her way out of the netherrealm yet

.Tomas is cybernized but his programing is a bit unstable due to his possesion on enenra and in the future when Tomas is brought back, it into a human body while his cybernized body in possed by enenra

.Hanzo is attractive. Thats it. Why does he have to be attractive? Just cause

And that all that I have current apart of mykung au although more stuff might be added later down the line. What do you guys thing. Please put your feedback, criticism, helping ideas and prompt down in the comments(seriously please put them down. I need ideas and I have no idea what I'm doing. every now and then I get these waves of ideas and then my minds completely blank for weeks) Also I promise I'll try to post more about this au as often as I can with all this school work along with other ideas for other series an fandoms I have. Currently I'm thinking of two over aus , one being my own transformers fan continuity and one being an alternate universe in marvel.