#manifold morals

[lessattitudemorealtitude]

While Reani is explaining her very black and white views on who lives and dies, you can so clearly see Liam/Caleb’s eyes wandering as he’s processing this information. I fucking love it. 

Caleb: “Yes what is your stance on... does he have a stance on grey areas?”

Reani: “No.”

Fjord: “What if you disagree?”

Reani: “I don’t disagree”

Caleb just miserably looking at the rest of the group then kinda dissociating as Reani blatantly asks if they’re evil or not. And notably just not talking after that

[sappymix1]

genuinely what the fuck is jack manifold’s problem

[delta-orionis]

Currently losing my mind a little bit trying to find an alternate name for the Recursive Transform Array/Abstract Convergence Manifold regions in Five Pebbles/Looks to the Moon respectively. I think both names mean roughly the same thing.

(Left: Coils in the Recursive Transform Array, Right: Coils in the Abstract Convergence Manifold)

(Theorizing under the cut)

Both regions contain sets of large transformers (or inductors, they both look like coils) arranged into different groups. I assume the function of this region is to receive power from an iterator's power source (how iterators get their power isn't exactly clear- but at least in Pebbles' case it probably comes from the Linear Systems Rail) and step up or down the voltage so it can be distributed to the different electronic components of an iterator's superstructure as needed.

Stepping up/down voltage is the function of a transformer, which is where I assume the "transform" part of "Recursive Transform Array" comes from. In Moon's case, "abstract" in "Abstract Convergence Manifold" is a synonym for "transform" or "change", one thing is being abstracted, or changed into something else.

"Recursive" means "repeating" (and "repeat" is a synonym of "iterate", funnily enough), so this part probably refers to the multiple similar transformers found in the Recursive Transform Array.

In terms of the Abstract Convergence Manifold, either "convergence" or "manifold" could correspond to the "multiple similar things" meaning. The objects in question are "converging", coming together, or being similar.

"Manifold" is a bit trickier, the general definition means "variety" or "many", but the word has other uses. In typography, it can refer to the process of making copies of a document (via a carbon copy), and in engineering it can refer to a component that distributes gas or liquid to different parts of a system. So in this case, I'm going to assume that "manifold" means "copies" and/or "distribution". This makes sense if the Abstract Convergence Manifold distributes power (or maybe even Void Fluid) to different parts of Moon's structure.

And finally, "array" in "Recursive Transform Array" means a group of things arranged in a pattern. This is also probably what "manifold" in "Abstract Convergence Manifold" means; a group of copies of things.

Based on this, both names basically mean "group of similar/repeating things that change". This might not just refer to the groups of transformer coils, but also to the big square structures that both Pebbles and Moon have in these regions:

(These rooms are very dark, I'm only showing Pebbles' here because it's better lit than Moon's.)

This thing looks like a big computer chip, maybe a Central Processing Unit (CPU). I theorize that this room is where the majority of an iterator's processing takes place; where the actual iteration (in terms of computing: repeating a process) happens. So the things that are repeating and changed could be the actual iterative processes (simulations, thoughts, calculations) are carried out, altered slightly, and repeated again.

(Side tangent: I've always wondered what Pebbles was referring to when he mentioned his "processing strata". It might be layers of processors located in his Recursive Transform Array, possibly in the same big room as the square thing. Personally I think the processing strata are the little blinking lights you can see in the background of this room, but I could be wrong. If anyone actually knows the answer please let me know.)

TL,DR: If you have an iterator OC and you want to give their internal regions names but you don't want to simply copy existing ones, I'm pretty sure the naming convention for the transformer arrays uses synonyms for (similar/repeating) (change) (group). For example, "Sequential Flux Assemblage", "Parallel Modification Cluster". These sound silly, but basically everything iterator-related is silly technobabble, so I think the moral is to have fun with it.

Thank you for reading, and let me know if you have any ideas. I enjoy talking to people about random Rain World theories.

[bad-tf-fic-ideas]

(338) War, stress, poor coping mechanisms and relative isolation are taking their collective toll on the Autobots. Although they are incredibly resilient, theu were not really designed for war in the way the Decepticons were: with very few exceptions, they were built to be — by and large — companions and civillian helpers.

It's not clear what the effects of such low morale are initially, but over time, bots are starting to glitch, self-harm, and generally exchange 'poor coping mechanisms' for 'not coping.' Ratchet has been working on it, but the truth is that... he can't fix social and environmental problems with medial solutions. He brings this problem to the other medics and scientists.

"So what you're saying we need," Wheeljack says, "is a social and environmental solution?" And thus the Autobots' enduring tradition of rotating social improvement evenings is formed!

Now, if I was writing this fic, personally, I would go in for the smuttiest possible version of this concept and feature high command leading the weekly orgy by example (naturally). But I think we could also go for comedy by making it feel like a corporate retreat with personality surveys and trust and team bonding activities. It could also be fun if written from an outsider point of view: for example, a Decepticon spy (or hostage?) tries to figure out what on Earth is going on in the Autobots' base every Tuesday evening. The possibilities are manifold.

[celestialholz]

The Resurrectionist (or 'Crowley's dying briefly because character-building, and here's why')

I should start off by saying, friends, that I have written exactly zero books. (Bloody lot of fanfiction, but no actual novels). And I like coffee, but not particularly with oat milk. (The poison's metaphorical, not physical), but... well, you guys can keep both of 'em, because they're just not relevant to this conversation. I am also, as you may have already guessed, not Neil Gaiman. A chick can only speculate, but she does like to back it up with actual evidence.

No, I'm simply here to ask you a question.

What's the single worst thing Heaven could ever do to Aziraphale?

What would drive our angel so far from the clutches of Heaven that he would never, ever wish to return? What would set him unequivocally free from six millenia of assumed responsibility; what would make him realise that God can never change? What would strip everything away from him?

Because of course, this is what we have to do next series. This is Aziraphale's whole arc. If he doesn't try and change things and fail, he will always wonder. Always have a 'what if.' Will never be able to truly move on, will never be free from the eternal abuse cycle.

And so the severing has to be monumental, and everlasting. Then we get our happy ending. Storytelling, loves, done flawlessly. (Again, not a novelist... just a girl who's been writing for over half of her lifetime.)

And so, I ask again:

What's the single worst thing Heaven could ever do to Aziraphale?

And, well, it's a manifold question isn't it, with lots of potential ans - no I'm just kidding. Very simple question, very simple answer.

So congratulations to the very likely hundreds of you who have just said 'murder Crowley,' because a. you're very much correct and b. we've all just predicted the end of series three.

(... I mean, probably not the very end. But the emotional crux, definitely.)

And naturally, I'm not talking discorporation. I'm talking 'wiped from the universe altogether, leaving our angel eternally alone' kinda murder. The real shit. The good shit. Never mind any of this 'editing the Book of Life leading to an ineffable paradox' kinda bullshit - this is Heaven, the natural source point of holy water. One miracled Supersoaker and our demon's ancient history, friends.

Because y'see guys, severing Aziraphale's connection isn't the only problem we face in terms of narrative romance. We've also got Crowley, who has spent six millennia being in love with a guy who just takes, takes, takes... him for granted.

And this is NOT to say that Aziraphale gives him nothing back - he so very clearly does. (I am a consummate Aziraphale apologist, Crowley's just as much of a fool post-series two as our angel is, and Aziraphale needs this, as I've mentioned.) But... Crowley is his teacher. His moral guide. His protector. It mostly goes one way, and despite all of that and him being happy to be that guy for all this time... right when it matters most, Aziraphale (to Crowley, at least) has abandoned him. He's told him he isn't good enough.

(... Which is bollocks. That's not what Aziraphale's said at all, they're both as overprotective as each other and have a desperate, painful longing to keep one another safe in their own best way. But it sure fucking looks like it to CROWLEY, which is what matters.)

And so, we have two issues in achieving our happy-ever-after.

Sundering Aziraphale from Heaven forever;

Ensuring Crowley trusts him fully and knows completely that he is Aziraphale's only choice.

(And also by GOD do they need to have a proper conversation, but that one kinda goes without saying. It'll happen.) We have to even up this relationship; we have to make it absolute narrative equilibrium, and I am absolutely sure Neil knows this probably far better than I do.

... And so, how do we achieve both these things in one hit, whilst also telling a Second Coming story and holding a celestial war?

Well, we kill Crowley. Obviously. Not until episode five or six and after an emotional, romantic reunion of mutual understanding, but... we kill Crowley.

... And then Aziraphale brings him back. Yes, from complete death.

I would like at this juncture to remind you that miracles, apparently (and this is a thing we've just learned guys, almost like it's suddenly going to be relevant ongoing) are measured in Lazarii.

(Great thanks to the Aziraphale to my Crowley, @porgthespacepenguin, for these few screenshots I'm showing off here today. You'd never leave me, not even for my own good. <3)

Lazarii is very obviously named after Jesus' apparently greatest miracle, of raising Lazarus from the dead in the book of John. They managed to achieve twenty-five times the necessary amount of energy it takes to bring someone back from death... without actually fucking trying.

Let's take a look at the book of John a sec. Or more specifically, its eleventh chapter and twenty-fifth verse.

Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The person who believes in me, even though he dies, will live."

My thanks to Neil once again for murdering me like Heaven's going to murder Crowley. Cold blood, point-blank.

'Who believes in me.' Huh. Only for the past six thousand years, Aziraphale dear...

Here's a little of what the internet has to say about the number 25 in numerology, by the way.

And may I also remind you at this stage that there is a pub in this series called The Resurrectionist, and only Aziraphale goes into it.

I mean sure, Crowley's booksitting and trying to make the ladies hilariously like him and Aziraphale fall in love in the same way he himself did, but the fact remains... one relevant pub name. One guy. (We all need a narrative excuse sometimes Neil, I get you.)

Considering all this, friends, let me ask you another question. This one's a little more wordy, that's on me.

What do you think would happen when a being capable of raising someone from the dead twelve and a half times over for the sake of his beloved's protection loses said beloved beyond all doubt?

... And this will be after he gains the ultimate celestial power-up, by the way. In case we'd forgotten that that alone is also about to boost Aziraphale to the fucking stratosphere, and finally put him on an equal footing with Crowley. (Who is clearly an ex-archangel, but not Lucifer, so Neil's since said.)

... And I think we know the answer, don't we? The kind of miracle that

(You can't see me, but I'm staring into the camera like I'm one of The Office main cast right now.)

This is the kind of power that fucks with reality - the kind of power that scares Heaven and Hell to absolute death, hence Metatron being in the DMs. And crucially, this miracle was boosted because of love. Because of a desire to keep the status quo, their 'own side'. You amplify both those conditions to the nth degree by destroying one of them? It's over, lads. Resurrection is the beginning.

Resurrection evens up a playing field. It destroys Aziraphale and renews him in one hit; it proves to Crowley once and for all that Aziraphale loves him exactly as he is.

... It's a no-brainer, pals.

And what do they do after this? Well, fuck up the celestial order, naturally. I have theories, the main one of them being that they're going to be God and Satan respectively and unite Heaven and Hell in eternal marriage, but... that's just a theory. A television theory.

The resurrection thing? Not so much.

... See, this is the thing, my friends. You don't need to have written a 16k essay to predict the future.

All you need is the ability to tell a story, an observant eye for that which is already present, and a simple question. (Followed by a mildly more complex one. It's a working allegory.)

... I'm just going to leave you with this one shot of Aziraphale picking up his own destiny. Because poetic cinema.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The fixation on the morality of the offensive that included atrocities committed against Israeli civilians has a depoliticizing effect because it eschews a massive power imbalance, which shapes the current crisis. My insistence on context, which echoes nearly every Palestinian intervention, is to illuminate that there are root causes of this sensational violence. If we contextualize the civilian harm and the violation of the rules of engagement—including Israel’s manifold violations and its civilian harm—what we should be examining is, what is the framework, the underlying violence that characterizes everything that happens? And that framework is the crime of apartheid: a sustained seventy-five years of settler colonial removal, fifty-six years of occupation, and sixteen years of siege. Apartheid is, and will continue to be, the greatest crime against humanity in this instance. Because after this episode is over, and surely it will be, the regular daily warfare against Palestinians continues, as it has for decades. But this warfare does not get registered as such, because it’s read as what Teju Cole calls “cold violence”: the slow, daily degradations of living under occupation. But Israel conducts a tremendous amount of outright violence against Palestinians as well: look at the murder of the journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in Jenin in May 2022, the 2020 murder of my cousin Ahmad Erekat at a West Bank checkpoint, the settler incursions into Hawara, and the aerial and ground invasions against the Jenin refugee camp this summer.

And what is ironic is that even as us Palestinians are being cast as inherently violent, we’ve also historically been the source of spectacular nonviolent protests. Think of May 2018, when young Palestinians organized the Great March of Return. We saw thirty to forty thousand Palestinians at the Gaza perimeter, demanding the right to return home, to lift the siege. And they were shot down like birds at a 300 meter distance by Israeli snipers: 50 were murdered and more than 1,700 wounded. They posed no harm to Israeli military infrastructure or to Israeli civilians. And Israel itself admitted that they were using indiscriminate, disproportionate force: the decision to shoot these nonviolent marchers came directly from then–IDF commander-in-chief Gadi Eisenkot. They are admitting to war crimes and the intentions to commit them before Palestinians have even mobilized.

[keyslox]

have you ever noticed how part of c!jack’s character is he is obscure and nobody really knows him and how in the fandom he is also obscure and nobody really knows him

Jack Manifold was never really given the time of day. Sure, he had a small part in the server (ultimately the one who ended the whole thing), but his presence was not respected all that much. Placed into the lowest rank of L’Manberg’s cabinet, killed by Wilbur Soot for ‘not being seen’. He never got a REAL apology for that, by the way. I will stand by the fact that Wilbit’s apology to Jack was manipulative, half-assed, and more for himself than Jack’s wellbeing. It was well before the ‘Apology arc’ and THAT IN OF ITSELF shows just how little it actually meant to Wilbur. He was just doing it to make himself feel better and didn’t actually have Jack’s feelings in mind.

The biggest thing I see going around is Tommy being excused for what he did to Jack. Killing him when Jack went to visit him in the Nether during his Exile. Tommy has trauma. We all know that. He was a victim to extreme manipulation and abuse and a slew of other things. Yet he blatantly ignores every attempt, denies and/or doesn’t fully grasp that he did what he did. Which I can understand because the dude went through severe trauma, but that’s not an excuse. He still needs to take the accountability for his actions.

Jack deserves so much more than he’s ever gotten and it SHOWS. He literally wants friends. That’s it. He wants friend and companionship and he wants what he THOUGHT he had. Because he never actually had it. If he had it Wilbur wouldn’t have killed him, Tommy would actually listen, and he would be shown an ounce of respect for his own traumas and hardships when he tries to talk about it all. All everyone does is dismiss, downplay, and invalidate c!Jack’s pain. That’s a big reason why he’s the way he is! Every other attempt to let himself express his issues ends in him feeling worse about himself.

And we’ve seen time and time again that everyone else Jack tries to talk to and vent to takes Tommy’s side! (Ex: Puffy) There’s bias that Tommy can do no wrong and is the ‘savior’ of the smp. But even if he’s the ‘main protagonist’ doesn’t diminish he causes pain.

They give the excuse that Tommy was a child, that children should be protected and yada yada. Jack was more-or-less a child when he first joined, too! He should have the same excuses, the same treatment as all the other kids on the smp but he doesn’t because he was left alone and had to grow up faster.

He didn’t have anyone to lean against, so he just never let himself fall. And when he inevitably did no one cared or batted an eye because no one was there. He died 3 times and no one batted an eye.

The fandom is so bias sometimes. I’m not huge on DAMP fanfics that involve Jack because they mischaracterize him so much. Put him as a bully in School AUs, make him mean and rude for no reason. The reason in canon is because no one gave a single fuck about him. (not including Niki) Jack had a reason for being ‘cruel’, no one else did. It comes with the fact that Jack’s POV just isn’t as watched, so people don’t know his side of things. But what bothers me is that it feels like fans don’t even try to see stuff from his point of view. He was abused, manipulated, killed, and used in his own right. If everyone else gets excuses for the shit they did, he deserves it too.

Below is how I interpreted Jack’s ending, and how, despite everything he’s gone through, his character gets some sort of ending that isn’t completely angsty. I acknowledge that Jack isn’t the morally-perfect character, that he was fueled by anger and rage. He had a slight victim complex. But from a more basic pov, and for the fans who don’t really understand his character, I think he was redemptive. In his own right.

REDEMPTION:

From its literal definition Redemption is “An act of redeeming or atoning for a fault or mistake, or the state of being redeemed. deliverance; rescue.” The state of being redeemed comes in many shapes and sizes. Actions and words big and small. For some it may take great showings of purpose and selflessness. For others it can be as simple as “I’m sorry.”

Someone can go their whole entire lives fighting with something they ultimately in the end agree with. A lot of it is a matter of perspective. Jack only had one perspective.

Jack was alone for most of his life on the dsmp. Yes he had friends in the beginning but wars and betrayal had him distancing himself and trying to find ways to fix it. None ever worked. Because he was alone. When you only work with one perspective you don’t understand the other side, and how it might actually clear things up and switch your own views.

It only took Jack a matter of minutes after arguing with Tubbo for him to realize he didn’t have the whole picture. Someone so close to Tommy, someone who WAS there to see the other side of things. Someone Jack trusts and respects, who’d he call a friend, to listen and then fight him on his thoughts even if it was in the form of an argument. Though he fucked up and killed everyone, I think his actions of still attempting to save Tommy with Tubbo have given him a bit of redemption. Not all, everyone has faults. But he was on the path to healing when he died. If only for a few minutes.

Jack died by his own hands trying to right his wrong. If that’s not a symbolic Jack ending I don’t really know what is.

[warrioreowynofrohan]

This is the best thing I’ve read yet on the mass bombing of Gaza and on the oppression of the Palestinians. I’ve always had great respect for Ta-Nehisi Coates, and this is just magnificent:

Some excerpts:

And it became very, very clear to me what was going on there. And I have to say it was quite familiar. Again, I was in a territory where your mobility is inhibited, where your voting rights are inhibited, where your right to the water is inhibited, where your right to housing is inhibited. And it’s all inhibited based on ethnicity. And that sounded extremely, extremely familiar to me.

And so, the most shocking thing about my time over there [in the West Bank] was how uncomplicated it actually is. Now, I’m not saying the details of it are not complicated. History is always complicated. Present events are always complicated. But the way this is reported in the Western media is as though one needs a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern studies to understand the basic morality of holding a people in a situation in which they don’t have basic rights, including the right that we treasure most, the franchise, the right to vote, and then declaring that state a democracy. It’s actually not that hard to understand. It’s actually quite familiar to those of us with a familiarity to African American history.

And on Gaza:

…this is like really personal for me, because I came up in a time and in a place where I did not really understand the ethic of nonviolence. And by “ethic,” I mean the notion that violence itself is corrupting, that it corrupts the soul. And I didn’t quite understand that. If I’m truly honest with you, as much as I saw my relationship with the Palestinian people and as much as it was clear what the relationship was, it was at the same time clear that there was some sort of relationship with the Israeli people, too. And it wasn’t one that I particularly enjoyed, because I understood the rage that comes when you have a history of oppression. I understood the anger. I understood the sense of humiliation that comes when people subject you to just manifold oppression, to genocide, and people look away from that. I come from the descendants of 250 years of enslavement. I come from a people who sexual violence and rape is marked in our very bones and in our DNA. And I understand how when you feel that the world has turned its back on you, how you can then turn your back on the ethics of the world. But I also understood how corrupting that can be.

I was listening, actually, to my congressman last night, or I guess it was two nights ago, talk on the news. And a journalist asked him, “How many children, how many people must be killed to justify this operation? Is there an upper limit for the number of people that could be killed, when you would say, 'This is just too much. This just doesn't — this just doesn’t, you know, compute. This does not add up’?” And I will tell you, that congressman couldn’t give a number. And I thought, “That man has been corrupted. That man has lost himself. He’s lost himself in humiliation. He’s lost himself in vengeance. He has lost himself in violence.”

I keep hearing this term repeated over and over again: “the right to self-defense.” What about the right to dignity? What about the right to morality? What about the right to be able to sleep at night? Because what I know is, if I was complicit — and I am complicit — in dropping bombs on children, in dropping bombs on refugee camps, no matter who’s there, it would give me trouble sleeping at night. And I worry for the souls of people who can do this and can sleep at night.

And on Biden’s response to Gaza:

I mean, I think hearing President Biden himself — and here I will personalize it — downplay the number of Palestinian deaths, to say that he doesn’t believe the Palestinians, I just — when his own State Department was citing those figures only months ago, you know? At some point, you know, there’s that saying: When people show you who they are, you have to believe them. And so, I’ve spent a lot of time trying to do the political calculus on this. And I think at a certain point we have to just stop and say, “They believe it.” They believe it. They believe bombs should be dropped on children. They just think it’s OK. They think it’s OK, or at the very least they think it’s the price of doing business.

That’s not an ethic I can align myself from, because, as I’ve said several times in this interview, I come from a history where people wanted to make the exact same calculus about us and took stances that we would now say are immoral. But, see, the test isn’t what you did in the past; the test is what you do in the moment right now. I’m a writer. I would be much more comfortable — I was working on a book about this. I would be much more comfortable sitting at home writing about this, before I’m here talking to you guys right now. It is not my nature to talk about things that I have not written about yet. But one has to balance one’s responsibility against the suffering, against the death, against the body count. And to see what is coming out of this White House right now is just — it’s morally reprehensible. Again, I don’t know how people sleep at night.

[directedbywomen]

Celebrating Kasi Lemmons! “Perseverance is what I tell my students. It's important that you keep your dream alive, because you're going to encounter a lot of obstacles, and no one is going to dream big for you. You have to have the fortitude and the resilience to stick with your own dreams. That can be hard.”

Harriet (2019) "It’s one of the rare movies that joins the radical subjectivity of a visionary to the manifold and complex forces of the times, that fuses its story with the story of the writing of history itself, that unites the concepts of political and cultural freedom, that acknowledges the historical centrality of armed self-defense as a practical necessity and a moral right." Read more in The New Yorker's The Stunning Achievement of Kasi Lemmons’s “Harriet”.

Talk to Me (2007) "I’ve got to say, I’ve never really made a film or any art, written a script or anything, for a message. I’ve never tried to deliver a message. I think that what we’re all struggling with as artists is just being understood."

Read more in aalbc.com's The “Talk to Me” Interview.

Eve’s Bayou (1997)

"Her writing and directorial debut, Eve’s Bayou, is an unsettling and beautiful story about one Louisiana family’s series of revelations: It’s complex, mystical, and doesn’t easily lend itself to categorical definition." Read more in The Atlantic's THIRD ACT:THE JOURNEY OF A HOLLYWOOD DIRECTOR.

Explore Lemmons's filmograph on MUBI:

[saintmeghanmarkle]

I can't believe it took so long for me to realise this. On patricidal narcissism and psychopathy and patricide by letter. by u/ElectricalAd9212

I can't believe it took so long for me to realise this. On patricidal narcissism and psychopathy, and patricide by letter. ​Why did Markle scheme, plot and design to destroy her father?Court records show that there was intense plotting to design a scenario in which Markle snuffed her father out, morally destroy him, by excluding him from her wedding.The letter which was revealed in court, showed that she wrote a letter, intending to have it leaked to the press, in order to depict herself as a victim. Her cynicism was sociopathic. She said she would use the word 'Daddy' in the letter, to play on the heartstrings of the public when it was leaked.Why did she want to do this to her father? For the psychopath, the wedding was to be her 'introduction' as a woman of primary importance in the world, and it was the moment of her narrative creation, in which she became the centre of the world.This was to be the iconic moment of the creation of her mythology.For this, her family had to be wiped out, except for her mother, who was useful to her.I had thought that her father was not in keeping with the aesthetic she wanted to promote.He was elderly and overweight.To have an obese father wasn't becoming for the image she wanted to project.To exclude him allowed her to play the helpless victim, as if she was abandoned by her father.But it also allowed her something else.It enabled her to be walked down the aisle by the future King.This is what she and Harry planned all along.For her image, for her power, for what she wanted Hollywood and the celebrity elites of America, who were her true audience, to see, was to have a King hold her hand as she wedded. This would, in her eyes, elevate her status amongst those she was already planning to rule over, the gilded elite class of Hollywood and America.From the start, she calculatedly destroyed her father so she could claim (then) Prince Charles, future King Charles, as her father.Surely there was another element to this too?She would style herself as 'the daughter that King Charles never had'She would take primacy in his affections, over Catherine.She would daughter-love-bomb the future King, and marginalise Catherine.She would own the King, be the proxy daughter of the King.How Harry must have been thrilled by this way of thinking.It all seems like a wonderful scheme.How could Charles deny his 'daughter' what she wanted, half in, half out, to be the equal of Catherine in status, to be the power behind the throne one day?But there is another aspect to this.Patricide is an impulse that, once performed, may seek to enact itself again.And remember, Harry fantasises in 'Spare' about calling in a jet fighter to bomb his father as he drives away from him on a visit to an army training camp. A fantasy of patricide.And just as she schemed to commit patricide against her father using a letter sent to him to be leaked, calling him 'Daddy', the patricide scheme against the King, involved a letter she calculatedly sent him, to be the instrument of his destruction, by discussing an alleged 'racist' slight, which by strange chance also implicated the detestable Catherine, whom she is now pathologically and psychotically obsessed with.The manifold evils of Markle the psychopath, and her husband, their cynical, cyanide hearted, cold calculatedly evil plans and plots truly take the breath away.The good thing is we can see them all transparently and in the open, and the lessons she will ultimately learn is that evil can flourish in darkness, but plots exposed in daylight only leads to the destruction of the plotter.We see through you, we see evil and we protect the good hearted souls of the family against you both.​ post link: https://ift.tt/YHn0sDe author: ElectricalAd9212 submitted: December 18, 2023 at 08:34PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit

[lessattitudemorealtitude]

AW Reani giving Caleb one of her books as they do other things before getting to the Archive.... 

And Caleb just reads what’s given to him no matter what, love it

[wildpeachfarm]

https://www.tumblr.com/wildpeachfarm/744957402114310144/tbh-jack-manifold-and-mizkif-have-said-and-done?source=share

yeah not even a couple weeks ago they were all happily making rape jokes and apparently that’s all good according to the Brighton group

at this point we have established the brighton group only has morals when its convenient for them

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Charles Q. Choi

Published: Mar 7, 2012

Chimpanzees have police, too. Now, researchers are discovering what makes these simian enforcers of the peace step into conflicts, findings that could help shed light on the roots of policing in humans.

Animals handle conflicts within groups in a variety of ways, such as policing, where impartial bystanders intercede when disputes crop up. Policing, which has been seen in chimps, gorillas, orangutans and other primates, differs from other forms of intervention in that such arbiters are neither biased nor aggressive — they are neither supporting allies nor punishing wrongdoers.

Policing is risky, however, since it involves approaching two or more combative squabblers, which may lead to would-be arbiters becoming the targets of aggression themselves. To find out why primate policing evolved despite such risk, scientists took a closer look at pol.

The researchers analyzed one group of chimpanzees in a zoo in Gossau, Switzerland, for nearly 600 hours over two years. This group experienced a great deal of social tumult — zookeepers there introduced three new adult female chimps, upsetting the former order, and a power struggle also led to a new alpha male. The investigators also looked at records of chimp policing behavior at three other zoos.

The scientists monitored ape social interactions, such as aggressive conflicts, friendly grooming and policing behavior. Policing could involve threatening both quarrelers in a conflict, or running between the antagonists to break up the squabble.

The researchers explored a couple of potential explanations for policing. For instance, policing might help high-ranking members of a group control rivals to keep themselves dominant, or to help keep potential mates from leaving the group. However, both explanations would require high-ranking males to be the arbiters — female chimps usually do not fight over rank, and female chimps are the most likely members to leave groups, not males. In contrast, the researchers found that police chimps were of both sexes. [8 Ways Chimps Act Like Us]

The researchers suggest policing helps improve the stability of groups, thus providing the arbiters with a healthy community to live in. Supporting this notion is the fact that arbiters were more willing to intervene impartially if several quarrelers were involved in a dispute, probably because such conflicts are more likely to jeopardize group peace.

"The interest in community concern that is highly developed in us humans and forms the basis for our moral behavior is deeply rooted — it can also be observed in our closest relatives," said researcher Claudia Rudolf von Rohr at the University of Zurich.

The scientists detailed their findings online today (March 7) in the journal PLoS ONE.

--

Abstract

Because conflicts among social group members are inevitable, their management is crucial for group stability. The rarest and most interesting form of conflict management is policing, i.e., impartial interventions by bystanders, which is of considerable interest due to its potentially moral nature. Here, we provide descriptive and quantitative data on policing in captive chimpanzees. First, we report on a high rate of policing in one captive group characterized by recently introduced females and a rank reversal between two males. We explored the influence of various factors on the occurrence of policing. The results show that only the alpha and beta males acted as arbitrators using manifold tactics to control conflicts, and that their interventions strongly depended on conflict complexity. Secondly, we compared the policing patterns in three other captive chimpanzee groups. We found that although rare, policing was more prevalent at times of increased social instability, both high-ranking males and females performed policing, and conflicts of all sex-dyad combinations were policed. These results suggest that the primary function of policing is to increase group stability. It may thus reflect prosocial behaviour based upon “community concern.” However, policing remains a rare behaviour and more data are needed to test the generality of this hypothesis.

==

"mOrALiTy cOmEs FrOm GoD!!1!"

Even chimps know you don't "defund the police."

[doctentaclesrpg]

Reflections on the Realm’s Military Prowess

Transcript of letters by Nurbolatov Ironeye, RY 766, mercenary captain and military historian. 

Of the Superiority of the Realm's Military Forces

The legions of the Realm are endowed with manifold advantages over the levies, mercenaries, and military contingents of the Threshold. These advantages encompass superior logistics, rigorous training, standardized kit and gear, and the presence of mythical generals, saboteurs, sappers, and champions—collectively known as the Dragonblooded—each of whom can match the strength of entire regiments. Furthermore, the Realm's war-sorcerers possess the capability to obliterate regiments with a single incantation or to compel a river to part for their passage. Their healers expedite the recovery of the injured to a mere fraction of the usual time, and the presence of their commanders imbues the Imperial legions with an extraordinary valor that is seldom seen.

Perhaps the most formidable weapon in the Imperial Legions' arsenal is their reputation. It is not to suggest that the prowess of their troops is exaggerated; indeed, the Realm's military is widely acknowledged as the finest professional force in all of Creation. However, it is hard to truly quantify how immense the morale impact of a Realm Legion upon opposing forces actually is.

This is further compounded by the obvious fact that commanders who engage the Realm seldom survive to impart their knowledge. Those aware of the Imperial Legion’s reputation—marked by rapid deployment, overwhelming force, and victories against improbable odds—or who have previously encountered them, are often rendered hesitant in battle, fearing to take bold actions or press advantages, lest they suffer humiliating defeat. On the battlefield, troops frequently break ranks, disobey orders, or flee at the slightest sign of the battle turning against them, mentally defeated before the first arrow or onager is fired.

On the Shattering Illusion of Invulnerability

The true impact of the Battle of Frozen Blood was the shattering of the Realm’s illusion of invulnerability. Though the Bull of the North's losses were severe—estimated at anywhere from equal to double those of the Tepet Legions—the Realm suffered its most humiliating defeat since the era of Jochim, whose memory lingers only among the Chosen and the divine. Jochim is remembered more for his malevolence and ultimate downfall at the hands of the Realm, which, ironically, served to enhance the Realm’s fearsome reputation.

Although the Bull’s campaign has been halted, and the feared anathema general recuperates in his new capital of Plentilune, with Tepet saboteurs and Legion remnants continuing to harry his forces, the undeniable defeat of four Tepet Legions has fractured the once-impenetrable armor of the Realm’s invulnerability.

Ambitious warlords and generals now view the Legions with a newfound perspective, contemplating their possible vulnerability. To date, most who have tested this theory have met their demise, serving as cautionary examples. However, the merest whisper of an approaching Realm Legion no longer guarantees an immediate retreat to fortifications.

It remains to be seen what measures would be necessary to restore the Realm’s tarnished armor of invulnerability. Should a punitive expedition achieve a decisive victory over the Bull or his successors, the defeat at Frozen Blood may be consigned to the annals of history as a cautionary setback and testament to the wickedness and power of Anathema. However, the tide of morale is a living entity; another defeat may cause even the battle-forged legionaries of the Realm to question their own prowess, a circumstance that could spell disaster for the foremost military power in Creation.

[fafi-and-oblivia]

About Oblivia!

Hello! You can call me Oblivia! I am one of two admins on this account. Feel free to talk to me about Buzzfeed Unsolved, Jack Manifold (+other youtubers/streamers), Taylor Swift, MCR, Lovejoy, Fall Out Boy, BTS, Minecraft, Cryptid Coffeehouse, baseball, and many other things!!

I will write: angst, fluff, fics, headcanons, character x reader

I will not write: NSFW, yandere, gore, anything morally wrong (pls use common sense, I will just delete asks with typical taboo topics), I also will not write for real people, or character x character.

Fandoms/characters I write! Asterisks(*) denote favorites to write. List is subject to change!

Blooming Panic (current obsession): Nightowl*, Quest, Xyx*, NakedToaster*, Two2, BIGLADY*, Onionthief*

Harry Potter (fuck JKR): Harry Potter, Ron Weasley*, Hermione Granger, Neville Longbottom*, Seamus Finnigan, Oliver Wood*, Draco Malfoy, Matteo Riddle, Lorenzo Berkshire

Percy Jackson: Percy Jackson*, Annabeth Chase, Luke Castellan*, Jason Grace*, Leo Valdez*, Piper McLean*, Frank Zhang, Hazel Levesque, Connor Stoll*, Lityerses, pretty much anyone!

The Quarry: Ryan Erzahler*, Dylan Lenivy*, Nick Furcillo, Jacob Custos, Abi Blyge, Max Brinly, Kaitlyn Ka*

Supernatural: Dean Winchester, Sam Winchester*, Castiel, Kevin Tran*, Jack Kline, Charlie Bradbury

TSITP (boycotting season 2 bc I hate Belly): Jeremiah Fisher*, Conrad Fisher, Steven Conklin

To All The Boys/XO, Kitty: Josh Sanderson, Peter Kavinsky, Kitty Song-Covey, Min Ho*

The Umbrella Academy: Diego*, Five, Klaus

Bones: Zack Addy*, Vincent Nigel-Murray*, Wendell Bray, James Aubrey, Angela Montenegro*

The Haunting of Bly Manor: Dani, Jamie*

[koreanbibliophilegirl]

LILLY THE ALEX RIDER DSMP AU. IT'S OVERTAKEN MY BRAIN. THE NEW SERIES. TALK TO ME PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PL

Oh hi Bean!!! :D

LOL I have not watched s3 yet but I saw you brainrotting, I'm assuming it was great!👍

Okay okay okay so!!! Brief recap bc I need to refresh my memory:

Tommy as Alex, Techno as Yassen, Uhhhhh Phil as John and Kristin as Ian I think???

Dream as "a younger, greener Blunt" to quote myself, uhhh I think Mrs. Jones was Puffy?????

Jack Niki Sapnap Eret as K-Unit/K-Squad! Code names Thunder, Arson, Animal Abuse, and Tax Fraud!!!😃 (I believe Tommy was Drug Abuse lol)

Quackity as Ash, Hannah and Punz as [Point Blanc] with Purpled & Enderboo as two of the clones, Ranboo Aimsey and Eryn as the [PB] kids, with Ranboo(in the role of Kyra) later transferring to Tommy and Tubbo's school. Kyranboo pog!

Tubbo was Tom!! As he should be!!!

Uhhh okay I think that's about as far as we got???

AR!Wilbur was Jack(the Starbright variety not the Manifold variety) but I think we might want to change that particular bit...😅 I suggest Charlie or Schlatt!! If it's Schlatt then Tubbo could also be Tommy's pseudo-brother?? Yknow since Schlatt is usually Tubbo's dad in these things. Charlie would be funnier though, considering Ash and Jack canonically went on a few dates in AR.

"Oh yeah Quackity from Las Nevadas, we f*cked a few times!" "Charlie-" "He made real nice noises when-" "CHARLIE STOP-"

Awesamdad would be nice too, but I think Sam was Smithers??? Or maybe it was Foolish, idk.

Uuuuhhhh Point Blanc!! Still needs a name!!! It's just Hannah and Punz (+Purpled) so... uh.

....Academy Bedwars????

idk what to call them OTL, I'm saving Skephalo/Eggpire for Scorpia, I can't call PB the Eggpire...

Uuuuhhhh anyway!! Bedrock Bros bc we love Bedrock Bros in this house!!! Phil got discovered/fought his prodigy/got betrayed a little later than John did in AR canon, so Techno met baby Tommy a few times. Tommy's blue sweater coming from Techno was what we agreed on I think!

Anyway even though Techno felt betrayed by Phil being a spy, I think his feelings are a little different than Yassen. With Yassen it was pretty complicated, with him already being committed to Scorpia/the morally grey(like, really really dark grey) side, still being grateful to John for saving his life, etc. Meanwhile Techno would betray the Eggpire for one corn chip- if said corn chip was Phil. He was just angry Phil never told him.

"You're a spy????" "Techno I can explain-*" "AND YOU WEREN'T GONNA TAKE ME WITH YOU???!?!!! I thought we were a team, smh! S M f*cking H!!!"

(*: he cannot)

Anyway after Phil "dies"(I don't think he's actually dead, I feel like a major deviation from AR canon is bound to happen sometime and I think Phil returning would be an important plot point), Techno just. Stays with the Eggpire. He doesn't know how to contact MI6 anyway, and he doesn't really see the point when Phil isn't gonna be there. Also, staying with the Eggpire means he can keep an eye out for Phil's remaining family, so that's what he does till one day he sees Tommy(Techno had been keeping track of him so he knows what Tommy looks like, but the kid looks exactly like Phil anyway) in a... rich kid boarding school?? And he's going by Tommy Outit(/ref)??? Bruh???

Tommy, of course does NOT recognize Techno and he's like Why is that guy looking at me like he recognizes me. Meanwhile Techno is bluescreening bc Hey. Hey Kristin? Why is your son doing spy work? Kristin???

...

Okay Imma pass the baton onto you now, feel free to add on lol.

-Lilly xx