#me than the concept of love which MOST people do not have the same perspective on as i do and having different definitions of the same word

[raayllum]

Can you explain why Claudia is so upset with Terry when they reunite after he leaves? And why Terry, of all people, looks so guilty with her that he can't even look her in the eye? It's one of those things where you know this should all be reversed, but isn't. Why? Why is the betrayer so hostile to the betrayed?

God I loved the messy as fuck whatever they had going on Claudia and Terry dynamic in S7, and I think there's a few reasons why

One of the cruxes of Claudia's character is that she is attached to seeing herself as a good person, and others as not-good by comparison. This means that she can engage in the exact same behaviour and justify it while assuming that others' reasonings couldn't possibly measure up.

This cognitive dissonance is not exclusive to Claudia (Callum and Rayla in particular have a tendency to justify each other's choices in ways they don't with other characters, i.e. Rayla viewing dark magic use being 'evil' except when Callum is using it and he's the 'goodest' person she knows) but the focus on 'my view of myself' largely is. Most other characters in TDP are focused on "I still view this other person as a good person," not being focused on "I view myself as a good person". But Claudia is, and it's this core desire being increasingly pitted against "I will do vile, awful things to keep my family together" that are constantly duking it out.

When Claudia finds Soren and Terry waiting for her, it's clear that not only has Terry joined her brother, but has turned against her (as he could've left and then just fucked off somewhere else). This association with Soren, I think, is one of the things that gets her haunches raised, since Soren made it very clear what he thinks the last time they saw one another in 4x07:

SOREN: You have to stop trying to release the greatest evil this world has ever known. CLAUDIA: I knew you wouldn't understand.

All Claudia hears is "there's something wrong with you." That she's the bad guy and on the Wrong side (which, to be fair, Soren also calls her and Viren bad humans when trying to wake Rex Igneous in 4x09). And, by extension, that Soren is better than her. More correct, more moral, more Right.

And Claudia cannot stand feeling judged. She cannot stand being treated like 'the bad guy' (because of course from her perspective, everything she does is right) and she struggles to hold a conception of "I did something genuinely wrong and can still be a good person" (see: "We're not going to the dungeons Soren, we didn't do anything wrong") usually leaning into one or the other, and normally the latter.

So Terry being with Soren is also "you think I'm wrong, you think I'm bad, and you think you're Better than me" (vs Aaravos' "believed we could be better, so he gave us magic"). She thinks the pair are there to stop her, and she's not wrong, on a certain level.

So when Soren makes a gesture of good will, openly contingent on Terry wanting to spare her ("You're here to save me? How generous [...] I can change, and you will help me. Did I get everything?" Karim vibes), it's just seen as "you're showing off how/why you think you're Better than me" and was, quite frankly, never going to work.

Soren setting down his sword came closer, as it's more reciprocal, and it also symbolizes Soren setting down his mantle/duty (the same sword that killed Viren the first time, presumably). But Soren makes another mistake; the same mistake he made in 4x07:

Dad is dead, Claudia. You don't have to do what he wants anymore.

Set down your staff, Claudia. Dad's staff.

But while Claudia has been doing stuff for Viren, she hasn't done what he wanted in a long time. She's been doing what she wants ("You are not letting go, Dad!") for a hot second, and now alongside Aaravos. (I need to write a scene on her and Aaravos' talk in 7x06, but that's for another day.) And that has included taking down elves and dragons as a whole (and any elf that doesn't help her) for a while.

The dragons and the elves, all the arrogant fools blinded by the searing light of their own self-righteousness.

They are wrong, and she and Aaravos are right ("So much we can make right"). This is a very black-and-white viewpoint in many ways, one that some characters are faster as dismantling than others, but I have no doubt that Arc 3 will push it to its breaking point for all of them. Soren and Terry have thrown in their loyalties with the elves and dragons, since Terry was previously a "good elf Exception" alongside Aaravos because they were both helping her and, as previously discussed, Terry has now turned against her, and all the baggage Claudia carries about such a thing is now dumped onto him by proxy (which Terry doesn't necessarily know or understand).

So what does he look so guilty over?

Honestly? The illusion plan. I'm sure he's worried that Claudia might get hurt, and that things might escalate / go south, but he is ultimately there with a plan that is not what he wanted. What Terry wanted was to find the real Lissa and give Claudia a real chance to connect with her mother and maybe change her ways. But it's not real. It's deception, and he knows it.

TERRY: You lied to me! AARAVOS: I never lie. I simply said we needed a big feather and a very small feather. That is all. TERRY: No. You say you never lie, what you do is worse. You tell people half-truths and let people fill in the rest. You make people lie to themselves. It's deception. It's manipulation, and it's wrong.

She betrayed him, and now in his own way he's betraying her.

So what makes him decide to turn around and do something... similar, shall we say? There's a few things. The first is that they're on a time limit and have no way to reach Lissa. The second is that it's plausible the others were going to do it anyway, and Terry accompanied them because 1) he couldn't stop them, 2) he felt responsible, and 3) hoped that his presence would make a positive difference to Claudia.

The second is the other half of what Aaravos says to Terry, I think.

TERRY: I'll tell Claudia. AARAVOS: Oh, it will change nothing. She loves me. [...] And what of Claudia, then? She knows so much more than she tells you, and she keeps it that way to protect you.

Now, Terry rightfully understands that Claudia wasn't keep things from him to protect him; she did it to use him and to keep him from leaving ("I knew he'd leave once he found out"). However, Terry being willing to live in a half-truth and employ one on Claudia because he genuinely believes it will help her, because he thinks it's a truth he needs to withhold to protect her ("You have to promise me that no harm will come to Claudia" is most easily kept if she backs down)... that I can believe, especially since it lets him believe that she's capable of change/quitting. He wants to Save her, not use her.

That doesn't mean he thinks it won't Hurt.

[doctorwhoisadhd]

hmm thinking about the idea of love songs. i think the idea of what a love song is that we have in our culture is inherently a little bit flawed because we have the idea that any song written about romantic feelings is a love song and im thinking thats not exactly true because there is a difference between "romance" and "love". what i'm saying is not that love is a broader category and applies to things that are not romantic in nature. this is in fact true, but it's not what makes the important distinction here. the true distinction between "romance" and "love" is that romance is a societally defined type of interest in another person, whereas love is, essentially, a promise that you make when you build a relationship.

as such, what i call "love" here might be better defined as "care", as that implies more time and effort, but that's a different suitcase to unpack and largely unimportant to my point here, which is more about the societal conventions of what we call love songs. the point is, relationships can be built with other people, yes, but also animals, places, organizations, ideas, so on and so on, whereas romance requires another person, hence the difference between the ideas of "romance" and "love".

with that in mind, there are two types of songs we in western, english speaking, society call "love songs":

1) songs that are about a person's romantic interest in someone that is either definitively known to be unrequited (existing monogamous relationship, sexuality that doesn't align, etc) or simply not requited (aka romantic interest being unknown); and

2) songs about an existing relationship (keeping in mind my points about relationships not just being with people, but also places, things, etcetera) as is.

(some examples of the latter category: mountaintop by relient k, which defines the relationship in question as non-romantic; or i miss my mum by cavetown, which is - as the title implies - a song about the singer missing their mother.)

now, the thing that makes distinguishing these two difficult is the fact that songs about an existing relationship CAN be about wanting certain aspects of that relationship to change. in these cases, determining that a song is one or the other will hinge either on a) authorial intent or b) whether the song is more about what the singer wants (thereby implying #1) or the lack thereof in that relationship (which would imply #2).

to get back to the subject at hand: the term "love song", as we think of it, is an umbrella term that include both of these two categories, and i think that perhaps it is reductive to do so. with that in mind, i think perhaps it would be more appropriate for "love song" to mean only the latter, whereas the former is a category of its own. WHICH is not to say that the two can't overlap — just that if a song is about a person with whom the singer has no relationship, it cannot be considered a love song due to the fact that it is a song about infatuation, not love.

(another interesting wrinkle this provides is the fact that a song might start out in the first category and, as the writer develops a relationship with a person, might move into the second category as they write more.)

[grison-in-space]

wondering about whether you could rec some "romance is a social construct" texts? ofc it is, but i like having books and articles to reference/learn specifics from/see how these ideas have developed.

Sure! Here's a quick reading list. Bear in mind that I am not a professional historian and my reading on this subject is a little diffuse. I'm not tackling the behavioral ecology stuff right now because a) I don't have a more direct book rec off the top of my head than Evolution's Rainbow, which is not technically focused on social monogamy, and also b) I approach that whole field with my eyes wide open for people letting their own perspectives and cultural views get in the way of their observations of animals, and I do not have the energy to go deal with it right now.

If you're going to read two books, read these two:

Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, A History: how love conquered marriage. 2006. All of Coontz' work, having to do with the social construction of the family, is relevant reading to this question (and I'd also recommend The Nostalgia Trap, because the historical context of how we conceptualize families is a major part of the construction of romantic love), but this one is most focused on the social construction of romantic love specifically and what it has replaced. Coontz is, I will disclose cheerfully, a major formative influence on my thinking.

Moira Wegel, Labor of Love: The Invention of Dating. 2016. Exactly what it says on the tin; focuses more closely on the modern invention of dating and romance.

Other useful readings to help inform your understanding of different ways that various people have conceptualized sex, sexuality, society and long-term connection include:

George Chauncey, Why Marriage? 2015. Chauncey is best known for Gay New York, which also offers a useful history of the way that relationship models and social constructs for understanding homosexuality changed among men having sex with men c. 1900 to 1950. This book, published just before Obergefell v. Hodges, is a discussion of why contemporary queer rights organizations focused on same-sex marriage as an activism plank in the wake of AIDS organizing. I find it really useful to read queer history when I'm thinking about how we understand and construct the concept of romantic relationships, because queers complicate the mainstream, heteronormative concepts of what marriage and romantic relationships actually are. More importantly, queer activist organizing around marriage has played a major role in shaping our collective understanding of romance and marriage in the past twenty years.

Elizabeth Abbott, A History of Celibacy, 2000. In order to understand how various cultures construct understandings of marriage and spousal relationships, it can be illustrative to consider what the people who are explicitly not participating in the institution are doing and why not. I found this an interesting pass over historical and social institutions that forbid (or forbade) marriage with a discussion about general trends driving these institutions, individuals, and movements towards celibacy.

Eleanor Janega, The Once and Future Sex, 2023. This is a very pointed historical look at gender roles, concepts of beauty, and concepts of sex, attraction, and marriage among medieval Europeans with an extended meditation on what ideas have and have not changed between that time and today. I include this work because I think a deep dive into medieval notions of courtly romance is useful, partly because it is an important origin of our modern notion of romantic love and partly because it is so usefully and starkly different from that modern notion! Sometimes the best way to understand the cultural construction of ideas in your own society is to go look at someone else's and see where things are the same versus different.

It's a mish-mash of recommendations, and I'm reaching more for books that have stuck with me over the years than a clean scholarly approach to the subject. I hope other folks will chime in for you with their own recommendations!

[aeithalian]

Apollo and the demonization of power

I graduated and I'm back on my shit, y'all.

I saw this post by @apollosgiftofprophecy (hi Alder) about whether or not Apollo should have stayed mortal instead of regaining his godhood, and may I just say I 1000000% agree.

To summarize the post: if Apollo had chosen to stay mortal, his promise to Jason (to remember what it means to be mortal/human) wouldn't have meant nearly the same as if he'd gone back to Olympus. Regaining his godhood allowed him to chose to help people with his full ability and remember his humanity for however long it takes for him to fade.

And if I may add on: Apollo even talks about maybe choosing to stay mortal at some point in the latter half of the series, but eventually comes to the conclusion that to chose to stay mortal would be akin to running away from his problems. And he's right: if he chose to stay mortal, he wouldn't have to face Zeus again and he could shirk his responsibilities as an Olympian. So he decides against it (not that he really ever has the chance to chose). And I just love to take this as a great moment of character development and an insane amount of self-awareness for somebody who started their arc where he did.

But it also got me thinking. And, in short, I came to the conclusion that Apollo must be an idealist simply by the way he views power.

In this case, fiction reflects reality: villains want power. They want control. They want to squash rebellion. And that, typically, is an occurrence we typically only see with villains. Never with the heroes, who rarely want power outside of defeating their enemy. But here we have Apollo, who spends the entire series literally seeking power in his attempt to regain his godhood.

And that has morphed into something really interesting when it comes to representation of power in classical media. More often than not, power is demonized. It's seen as something inherently evil. If a character wants power for themselves, they're likewise seen as evil. Any one of your classical antagonists are going to, at some point in their stories, want power in any which way it presents itself. Voldemort of Harry Potter wanted to live forever. Sauron of Lord of the Rings wanted the Ring of Power. Palpatine of Star Wars wanted control of the galaxy. Zeus wants to rule the Olympians. The list goes on.

On the other hand, in stories where a protagonist seeks power to destroy their opponent, they eventually end up discarding their items of power because they don't want to be 'corrupted'. Harry Potter refused to use the Elder Wand. Frodo destroyed the Ring of Power. Luke Skywalker turned down the Dark Side. Even Percy Jackson declined godhood.

But Rick, in writing Apollo's character, takes an interesting approach and a fun subversion of this trope that I, for one, absolutely love. Previously, he'd written Percy to turn down godhood because he primarily wanted to maintain his humanity. To Percy, being a god and being human are two mutually exclusive concepts. They don't coexist. For Apollo, on the other hand, he accepts power out of a sense of duty, and vows to use it well in the spirit of his promise to Jason. There is no demonization of power. And to Apollo, humanity and godhood are not exclusive concepts. So what does that mean post-trials?

There are two perspectives at battle here. First is demonization: 'power is inherently evil'. But the idea that power corrupts is not necessarily a fact: in my opinion, power in and of itself isn't evil. Yes, it's dangerous, but it's more or less a blank slate. What you do with power, who you are when you have it, is what defines it. And that's a pretty nuanced take, and it comes with its ups and downs, requiring those powerful protagonists to be your most responsible, most dutiful, most kind characters who take up the mantle of power with the full understanding of what it means. Who's to say that you can't achieve power and use it well? So there's the other perspective: 'power is a blank slate'.

Let's look at power from a Zeus vs. Apollo perspective:

Zeus wants power (or at the very least, to maintain his power) as a way of controlling people, squashing rebellion, and maintaining order in the way he sees fit, without any sense of legitimate justice or care for others. It is Zeus' actions that make him evil, not his power.

Apollo, on the other hand, seeks power as a way of solving problems, creating solutions that benefit the greatest amount of people possible, and creating a lasting difference on others to change for the better, just as he did. More often than not, when he reminisces about having power in the series, it's more out of a place of 'this terrible thing wouldn't have happened if I were a god', or 'I could help better if I were a god'. Never once does he view power as a way of controlling or manipulating others. Power, to Apollo, is just the ability to love to the greatest extent possible (re: my meta on Apollo's fatal flaw).

But the interesting thing here is how Apollo views power in general, outside of his own. The idea of demonizing power doesn't even occur to him, despite the fact that he's been the subject of abuse for millennia. What's fascinating to me is the fact that Apollo, having been hurt so often by Zeus' power, doesn't ascribe that same generalization to his own person.

I find that very interesting: abuse does wacky shit to people's brains. By all means, that should have irrevocably changed Apollo's perspective on power as a whole, right? Not if you've learned to view power as something that is part of you, no.

I don't know how other gods besides Apollo view their own power, I actually think it's accurate to say that gods view power as something inherent to their nature. And, honestly, maybe it is. But that's besides the point.

Regardless of whether or not power is inherent to gods, Apollo, throughout his journey, realizes that it must go hand in hand with responsibility and humanity. Power is a privilege. That 'blank slate' perspective is one he learned in his trials, the knowledge that the power he has is something he shapes, and something he has no excuse for. If power is inherent, all of Apollo's wrongdoings are his own failings.

And that's even more interesting when you relate it to his relationship with Zeus. Apollo must likewise know that Zeus' wrongdoings are solely his fault, not a result of his power. It's a fascinating perspective of power coming from somebody who has none, who's been hurt by somebody who has so much. To maintain that optimistic view of power as non-corrosive when faced with your abuser is, I think, the glaring mark of an idealist.

So, what does this mean post-trials?

I think, along the same vein, there is a point where the idealist breaks. They have a glimpse of reality: all is not well. For Apollo, that's at the end of the series where he decides that Zeus is beyond all hope. Take this quote from the Tower of Nero:

Some fathers don't deserve [reconciliation]. Some aren't capable of it. I suppose I could have raged at him and called him bad names. We were alone. He probably expected it. Given his awkward self-consciousness at the moment, he might have even let me get away with it unpunished. But it would not have changed him. It would not have made anything different between us. You cannot change a tyrant by trying to out-ugly him.

More often than not, my favorite stories are the ones where the main character gains power, keeps it, and uses it for good. Aragorn accepted the crown of Gondor. Luke Skywalker chose to train a new order of Jedi. Apollo regained his godhood. And readers of any of my multichap fics know that I love to write this trope as well.

But, much like my mutuals and I have been yelling from the rooftops for LITERAL YEARS, Apollo's story is not over. And once the idealist has 'broken', like we see in the scene above, there's only one way it could go.

To see somebody mishandling their power in a way an idealist knows is corrupt is quite literally a recipe for revolution. Look me in the eye and tell me that the way ToA finished wasn't setting up a revolution. Do it, I dare you.

Regardless, it's safe to say that, at some point, somebody's going to take a look at Zeus and say "you know what? Anybody could do better." Just saying.

Anyways, vive la révolution.

[a masterlist of my other metas]

[varlaisvea]

’this one’

ok i am kind of a dork about ta’agra. i am a ~linguist by education, and in eso, ta’agra has definitely gotten the most love out of all of tamriel's languages, enough such that it has understandable grammar and root words. (enough such that you can kiiind of figure out a general idea of what zerith-var is saying a lot of the time!)( if you've read the amount about ta'agra that i have!) (a normal fanfic writer amount, which is obiously a lot but, as with all elder scrolls lore topics, is insignificant compared to the real ta'agra fans out there). (but for real imagine being a language dork and having a video game give u a lil language dork treat for being a dork about its made up language. elder scrolls babey.). i’ve always been interested in how khajiit refer to themselves, because they have multiple ways of doing so, and—this being the elder scrolls—the choices people make in this regard are culturally meaningful. someone may say “I/me” or “this one” or their name/nickname, and the choice says a lot about the character, their background, and their mindset.

"this one", as a phrase, actually has deep and nuanced historical, cultural, and linguistic lore. because this is the elder scrolls.

as far as personal pronouns, zerith-var and the characters in his flashback stories only use I/me to refer to themselves. one could simply assume that language usage changes over time (khajiit in the 4th era in skyrim, don't really use it, for example). but, this being the elder scrolls, of course this (ultimately extremely minor) lore discrepancy is explained: zerith says “this one” is a more accurate translation for the way the personal pronoun (I/me) is used in the modern day, but it’s completely absent in his time. he doesn’t like “this one” at all: he observes that while ta’agra and cyrodiilic have mixed significantly over time, in his era, they were ‘mere acquaintances.’

so, it's an effect of khajiit mixing more with the rest of tamriel after a few decent centuries without a major war or catastrophic plague, but it's also more than that. languages are frameworks that both inform and convey the speaker's cultural perspective, and using "this one" reflects a desire to express something that "I/me" does not. in terms of how the word is used grammatically, the translation of “ahziss”, the ta'agra personal pronoun, is most accurately “I/me/my." but the literal meaning of "ahziss" is more accurately "this one" or "one person [of a group]" (although canon vs fanon is murky here). so, implicit in the ta'agra personal pronoun is the fact that the speaker is part of a whole—ie, they are saying me, this particular member of the group (the khajiiti people), or this particular khajiit (me). i imagine this is why some khajiit use "khajiit" as a personal pronoun; that also seems like a pretty reasonable approximation of what it sounds like "ahziss" means. this being the elder scrolls, khajiiti mythology also reflects this concept of the individual always being a part of the whole through the lunar lattice—you can see why it might be important to someone to convey something like that in their speech, when referring to themselves.

if this were not the elder scrolls, the lore related to this phrase might end at grammar and history (or well before that), but we are playing a game franchise whose name itself references the truly absurd amount of lore it has. so obviously we must consider the modern usage of the term, in order to really round out the lore about 'this one.'

nobles, like Khamira and Gharesh-ri, tend to speak with a distinct upper-class accent, and exclusively refer to themselves as I/me. The same is true of many scholars, mages, and wealthy people. this seems to suggest that well-educated, wealthy, and cultured khajiit are speaking a more "proper" tamrielic. southern elsweyr is more cosmopolitan (at least the parts that remain, which are largely cities), and people from the south tend to consider themselves more worldly and refined than their northern counterparts. accordingly, this 'upper class' and 'more tamrielic' manner of speech seems associated with a southern accent. this is consistent enough in the game that you can hear the torval curiata in zerith-var’s quests speaking with a southern accent, but using ‘this one’, and it’s kind of jarring.

currently elsweyr has been devastated by the knahaten flu, but historically the south was a wealthy, multicultural coastal trading economy (plus skooma and elegantly organized crime). the north has always been largely badlands inhabited only by baandari nomads, with a more modest agrarian trading economy in the two (formerly three) cities in the north, which are constantly invaded by cyrodiil over the centuries, and cut off from the rest of elsweyr by a massive canyon (and now also a condemned city). so (sorry to any non-americans but i can only make analogies referencing places i know), the north is like if vermont was an ancient desert with dragons in it, while the south is like if bethesda maryland was a post-apocalyptic jungle w/ dragons in it.

soo lower-class, rural, and less-educated khajiit, as well as khajiit from the northernmost part of elsweyr, seem more likely to use 'this one', and there's a lot of overlap in those groups. it's just part of the way people talk-- many people seem to use 'this one'/'I'/their name to convey shades of meaning. using "this one" or your name both require consequently referring to yourself in the third person, which has a much different vibe than referring to yourself in the first person. using your full name, or your name plus your title, or your nickname, or "this one" all have different vibes, and say different things about how you would like to define yourself in that moment. different people mean different things with their choices, but your choice can convey levels of intimacy, public vs private speech, formal or informal, etc.; it's all about feeling and personal preference.

razum-dar is probably the khajiit you talk to the most, and he is interesting to pay attention to--he is as calculating in his use of language as he is with everything else. to the player and to queen ayrenn, he mostly calls himself "raz" (suggesting that's what he uses with people he considers friends), and he usually only uses "I/me" when he is expressing a genuine emotion--ie, almost never. he uses "this one" to humble and formalize his speech when speaking to nobility or in an official capacity, but he also defaults to it when he's in the field. he is impressively cultured, well-read, and politically savvy, but he keeps those "this one"s generous when talking to others, especially high elves. being from merryvale, he has a fairly obvious northern accent, so he is happy to play the part of the lazy redneck sleaze he knows people will presume him to be--he counts on people underestimating his intelligence, and uses it to his advantage.

when the elder scrolls is great, it's because they don't shy away from depicting eg racism, they make their racism function accurately within the culture they have created, and the in-universe racism is fully baked right into "this one".

the cyrodiilic perspective is the in-universe cultural norm in tamriel, and the cyrodillic idea of what a khajiit is like would be informed by the khajiit they would most often interact (and racism). that would be farmers from rimmen and riverhold at a grain market, or baandari traders, who talk and act even more Like That and are even more ~exotic. so, it makes sense that an exaggerated northern accent with copious "this one"s is often used as a sign that someone is being lazy, dishonest, false, or patronizing. think of Pacrooti and Fezez; both have the obsequious khajiiti huckster manner of speaking, underscored by every over-the-top khajiiti idiom in the wiki. They never say "I" or "me", which means they are always referring to themselves in the third person, which in English implies deception. it tacitly admits you are using a persona with some separation from yourself and a good amount of falseness, especially if you let slip that you understand the concept of "I" well enough to insincerely call a stranger to whom you are trying to sell something "my friend." (Fezez even uses "khajiit" as a personal pronoun, which is part of the persona in his case, but also people still do talk that way a sometimes--it seems to be old-fashioned; mostly used by elderly folks, baandari, and people in truly remote backwaters.)

i feel like you can see what zerith var disliked about 'this one'. like, even setting aside the fact that as a person, he cannot comprehend a definition of 'I' that does not already contain within it the concept of the lunar lattice (which is azurah's love, which connects all khajiit to one another, even the ones whose souls were thought beyond saving.) like you can see where that alone would be incomprehensible to his understanding of his own existence. but even aside from that.

he is observing how people treat each other in this time, both good and bad. so he must see the ways khajiit experience racism, and how that racism differs from place to place. his life was such that he never even had to consider the unthinkable question of how to convey what 'I' means to you, let alone how to convey that in a language you now must speak for your own survival. like how do you explain 'when I am talking about myself, I mean me, this person who is honored to be part of an eternal whole, and so completely humbled to be a link in that lattice that they must speak of themself in the third person.' and like, my mans understands how they got there, but he also sees it getting mocked and associated with all the negative stereotypes of modern-day khajiit. which he also cannot help but see reflected in the actions of khajiit, both because he is now experiencing a multicultural society for the first time ever and thus seeing khajiit through an observer's eyes for the first time, and because you totally actually do meet plenty of khajiit who lean into that persona, in fact most khajiit in any type of merchant or service role, anyone who is trying to sell you something, throw some of it into their personality.

and now despite the fact that he is a two thousand year old monk with the power to resurrect the damned in order to offer them true peace, and he has been here for like twenty minutes, he's already felt the weight of 2000 years of history and 2000 years of racism by having to contend with the existence of that phrase. i get why he's like 'nah not for me'

anyway surely this is a normal amount of things to know and ways to feel about a simple phrase in a fictional language!

[transient-winds]

The conclusion of the Noroshi arc has finally arrived! Way to go Bofurin and allies 🥹🙌!!

Spoilers for Wind Breaker Chapters 157 and Chapter 158 ahead! (with additional doodles as an apology for not posting last time, exams was kicking my ass i fear)

Crazy how this whole arc happened in around or in less than 12 hours and I was so ready for it to end on 157 but I should’ve know Takiishi was too stubborn to be knocked out so easily.

GAHHH I have so much to say about the symbolisms in these two chapters.

So first of all, the “Umemiya’s will to change Furin is akin to forging metal” analogy from Endo (Chapter 153) comes back in 157, but now it’s being used in the context of Takiishi. The metal (Takiishi) is finally hot enough to be malleable for potential change and its evident with his new found interest in the rain. Throughout most of Takiishi’s life, he has remained static. He gets what he wants, when he wants and how he wants it. If he doesn’t like it, he gets rid of it. There had been little else that has ever made a significant impact or changes in his life, then he meets Endo and Umemiya—

—both becoming the faces of his perception on the types of people that exist in his life. Then, Umemiya takes it a step further and becomes the catalyst to a (much needed) change in perspective for Takiishi. In my opinion, Takiishi liking the rain can be symbolic of two things:

(1) the rain or more specifically water in Buddhism symbolizes purity, clarity and calmness. Think back to how hellish and messy Takiishi’s mindscape was like in Chapter 153, it had been full of all his interests (notice the fireworks in the bkgd? he said he likes fireworks in 158) and how he perceives things from the outside world. Takiishi starting to like rain means he’s introducing rain to his mindscape, and I can only assume it helps clean up that horder’s wet dream of a place. That is to say, he’s allowing himself to be cleaned from the impurities and bring serenity into his life.

and (2) it represents Takiishi reaching Nirvana (or something similar to it). Now, to most people this probably came out my ass but hear me out: nirvana literally means “to blow out (a light/fire)” or in other words “to extinguish” and as a concept in Buddhism, its a state in which one extinguishes the three posions (i.e. greed, hatred and ignorance) from their life and reaches enlightenment. AND THE TITLE OF CHAPTER 158 IS “The Great Fires of Extinction*”. *smacks my scrub-down board* DO YOU SEE THE CONNECTION RN? TELL ME IM NOT CRAZY FOR THINKING THIS. What I’m getting at is Umemiya was able to help in quelling the poisonous flames of Takiishi’s heart and guided him to self-betterment JUST LIKE THE DUTIES OF FUDO MYO-O AND EXACTLY LIKE HOW BUDDHA CONVERTED THE EIGHT LEGIONS TO BUDDHISM. (Sorry for the capslock im just *gestures wildly* excited)

*note: my delulu brain made the connection between extinction and extinguish because they both refer to the removal of something. (update: etymologically, they both orginated from the same latin word extinguere / lit. destroy or put out)

By the end of this arc, Takiishi has changed significantly and, as much as I hate to say this, but I agree with Endo on this being a beautiful fight. It had been a long time coming for both parties but it had been a necessary conversation to kickstart a new beginning for Takiishi like a rebirth of sorts (+ it allowed Endo and Sakura to gain perspective on people, their complexities and for the latter the responsibilities of being top dog). Wish it didn’t have to end in the rooftop and the town becoming a mess, but oh well, we can’t have everything.

I love love LOVE how Nii-sensei writes Umemiya. His role as a guide and protector to both his people and his enemies is so fucking beautiful and poetic, my words won’t do it justice. In my heart, I see it as him stepping up to be the big brother figure he was always meant to be—had the accident not happened, he would’ve been the best one in the world.

“There’s nothing more fascinating than people.” AGREED KING, SPEAK YOUR TRUTH. I

NOW FOR MY SILLY YAPPING!

UmeEndo conversation really shines in 158 and I’m living for it. I get you UmeEndo shippers, I get you. Endo’s so fucking weirded out by Ume’s optimism and genuineness, I genuinely love how uncomfortable he gets. I’m framing the faces he made in this chapter. Oh how the turns have tabled, you absolute goof.

I already said this once to a friend but I’ll only say it one more time, but I’m genuinely happy for Endo. He has stuck onto Takiishi like a leech without any expectation for the latter’s reciprocation and it was kind of pitiful watching him dance around Takiishi like an annoying chihuahua. Now that Takiishi has officially and verbally acknowledged him, it was heart warming…I guess. I'll let him ride this high with a follow up sketch I'll share here later.

–

Despite no sunrise panel, I think it was appropriate for this arc to end in a downpour. It’s fitting like a forest fire dying down from the rain to replenish the earth and grow anew with all the nutrients from the ash remains of the forest (shoutout to Ales for her EndoChikaUme being Fuel, Fire and Ash post, im kissing your brain rn). Overall, very happy with the conclusion of the Noroshi arc and I’m happily dancing to Happy Xmas (War is Over) by the Plastic Ono. All the love to Nii-sensei and everyone in the official English translation staff for literally the best arc so far in the manga. And thanks for reading ‘til the end of this post. ^^

[darkwood-sleddog]

https://scitechdaily.com/dogs-can-talk-study-confirms-dogs-intentionally-use-soundboards-to-communicate/

Saw this and wondered about your thoughts on it. I remember reading awhile back your post(s) about it and Clever Hans and everything.

I haven't read the study myself yet, so I don't have opinions/information beyond that.

I personally don't think this study proves button dogs are doing anything new or surprising or beyond Clever Hans-like behaviors.

First off, the study is self-reported and the sample size is not very large, meaning that the dogs are not in a laboratory environment where we can be sure they are getting the same type of instruction and that anything that might lean the study towards Clever Hans effect is mitigated (we even have to try to purposefully mitigate Clever Hans effect in Human behavioral studies btw).

Clever Hans effect is not imitation, much in the way the study describes that dogs are not imitating their owners. It's not like the horse was imitating his handler stomping at the ground, the horse who was known as Clever Hans used his knowledge of human body language to anticipate the correct answer and would stop pawing at the ground when this body language was achieved. A big part of "Clever Hans Effect" is the fact that this body language, by the humans involved, is not consciously done. We all display things unconsciously from a body language perspective and domestic mammals like dogs and horses, who have been bred to work alongside humans for a very long time, are excellent at decoding this. The horse didn't understand math in the same way these button dogs in all likely hood only understand that the combination of these particular sounds give them something they desire. I can ask my dog to sit and they'll get a treat, which is rewarding. So the next time they hear "sit" they are anticipating a reward and performing the behavior that produces the reward. They do not understand the word "sit" in the context of the English language. I can change that word to any human language or any word I want and they'll still perform the behavior as long as that sound (+potential hand signal) + reward is associated with the behavior on a consistent basis.

The study goes on to say that the dogs can string two-word combinations together to communicate. It's well known that dogs can be taught quite a few words and combinations of words/commands even without buttons, so this is not surprising (my dogs know that Gee (turn right) is different from Gee Over (get to the right side of the trail for example).

The study observes that most button communication from dogs dealt with essential needs such as "outside" + "potty" or "outside" + "play". These are already needs and desires that dogs (attempt to) communicate with their owners on a daily basis, the only difference between somebody relying on buttons for this communication vs somebody who is not is that a majority of pet owners are not well versed in dog body language and may be ignorant of or misinterpret what their dog is trying to communicate. I personally think there is a huge problem with expecting dogs to communicate in a distinctly human-like way that has not been proven to be more accurate than basic commands + body language while us as humans might place little or no value in the communication styles of dogs themselves.

What the study does not do is prove that button using dogs are describing dreams, emotions, or anything beyond their immediate needs. These concepts are peddled heavily by the most popular animal button communication influences such as Hunger for Words and Bunny the Dog, etc. It is THIS aspect peddled by dog button people that irks me the most (in addition to some of the ableist language towards non speaking people these people have pushed..) because it is simply not true that their dogs can describe dreams they had or how the dog feels about their new baby. It is not scientifically proven. Button for potty? Cool, I love that if it works for you. I don't need a button like that for my dogs because I understand their body language differences between outside + potty and outside + play, but I know some people might need a tool like this for clarity or ease. Buttons to describe dreams and desires beyond a dog's immediate needs? I'm suspicious and comparing you to Koko the Gorilla's handler who did the same thing (non-scientific attributing of emotions given to the animal they care for in a non-accurate way).

The study says it would love to find out if they can attribute button use to dreams, complex emotions, past & future events, etc. But how can you possibly, in good faith, know you're being accurate with this when we cannot even guarantee an absence of Clever Hans Effect in human behavior studies? When we have not even been able to identify these things in a non-button study? How do you identify if it is happening correctly within button using dogs if you can't identify if it is happening within normal dog behavior?

and finally, the study lists four individuals associated with the study and NONE of them are animal behaviorists or have backgrounds in DOG cognition and behavior. One of those four people is associated with the brand of buttons used. This alone flaws the study enough for me to discount it.

[skaldish]

I'm about to give you all the single most powerful piece of advice that was ever told to me:

It is important to be a principled person.

This is more important than being a good person. But don't take this to mean I think we should be bad people.

The reason why "being principled" has more weight than "being good" is because the definition of "good" is arbitrary. It changes depending on who you ask, which means the standards of achieving goodness are always going to change and pose contradictions.

Principles are different. They are more actionable and concrete. Principles are ideas and concepts you personally value, in that you find them valuable to your lived experience. This makes them different than something like a commandment, because they're not a doctrine. Their source is your personality—who you are and the experiences that have shaped you—rather than your goals and ambitions alone.

To give an example, here are a few of my own principles:

I value self-sovereignty. I think it's a person's inherent right to be free of undue influence, and to act as agents of their own free will. (Not to be confused with acting with impunity; people have the right to experience the consequences of their own actions the same way they have the right to act upon their own free will.)

I value people. I show people courtesy as a baseline, even during arguments, until it becomes clear the other person simply wishes to engage in the spirit of hostility. And even then I don't really lash out—I just leave. At no point do I lose sight of the fact that the people I'm interacting with are as real as I am, who have feelings and complex lives the same as I do. This means I also really value trying to understand where people are coming from, and to look at things from their perspective, even if I don't agree with it.

I value being accurate, as opposed to being right. This has been a more rewarding approach for me, by comparison.

I value discernment. I want to know what things are, which means differentiating them from what I think they are from what they seem to be, and from what they are not. The reason why I practice discernment is due how I think—my brain understands things based on how they are, rather than based on what they are—but the reason why I value discernment is because it allows me to interact with the world in a much deeper way.

I value being a mammal. Life becomes easier when I (to quote another Tumblr post) let the mammal that is my body love what it loves. Fighting against this in the past proved to be a pointless and joyless endeavor.

I have more, but these are just the things that come to me off the top of my head. And keep in mind, these will likely change as I change as a person, because that is how principles work.

To be honest, I've never put much thought into whether other people should have the same principles as me; people have different personalities and lived experiences than I do, so it makes sense to me that we would all prioritize different things.

But what I do know is that I fundamentally disagree with people whose principles are antithetical to my own, principles like conquest (of self or other), conformity, purity, and controlling others. Whether or not someone realizes they're embodying these principles is another story, but in any case it's how I know who to avoid engaging with. This is regardless of someone's political alignment or identity.

In my opinion, thinking this way makes it easier to stay grounded in a rapidly-changing world, and to remain focused on what's actually important to you in the face of the unknown. It allows you to find stable ground within yourself.

[utilitycaster]

Do you think this new option could lead to a break up in the party and some of the characters leaving the group? Because I can't see everyone agreeing that this is the best solution, but I also think Ashton is stubborn enough to refuse to consider anything else

This is going to be a very long answer for what is a pretty short question that could be answered in one sentence, and here's why.

I've gotten a lot of questions in the past week or so that are specifically asking me what I think the future will be - for campaign 3, and for Critical Role generally. And I've gotten a little frustrated by them, which is somewhat uncharacteristic of me because I love having opinions, but the fact is, I don't know and I don't even have strong opinions. So I dug into that, and why people might be asking these things more than usual, and I really think it's because the narrative of this campaign is so constantly under threat of derailment or going in the same old circles that pretty much anyone in the fandom with any sense of narrative structure, and what makes for a well-crafted story is like "so...what's happening." Which is translating as coming to me, a person who is very good at sounding confident and knowledgeable.

I do not fucking know. I share this frustration, and I cannot be the person to clear it up. i am not even the best at narrative or analysis in this fandom; as I pretty frequently state I took the hard STEM option with regards to my education so while I read a lot and have a pretty good sense for the lay person, there are actual like, trained and published writers. For what it's worth several of them are my mutuals and while I'm not putting the rest of this post on them I do feel safe saying they agree that the lack of narrative direction is at the heart of most people's frustrations with this campaign, even if they enjoy the characters. But getting back to the point, I do not know.

Here's where I stand on the actual plot before I go back to the bigger picture. I think that unless Bells Hells decide on their course of action pretty quickly, no ending will really feel satisfying due to that sense of directionlessness - and there are arguments for Bells Hells to take either the Arch Heart or the Accord's plan, though I think the Accord's is far superior, but they need to pick one.

Because of the ongoing issues with this party lacking perspectives that tied in well to this story and having to hinge everything on either one singular interpretation of one single instance in extraordinary circumstances (eg: Dorian), or stuff that feels, as I've said before, retconned, I have generally been extremely amenable to Bells Hells losing party members either through a split or through character deaths. This is not out of any sort of vindictiveness or dislike of characters, but just a hope that now that they know the vibe, the cast will make a character who has a perspective that is relevant to the story (which, FCG is not an ideal example because they happened to be the character who had perhaps best grown from their original concept to fit into the themes of this campaign, but Braius obviously is a very strong character informed by the story as well). I also think that a lot of the indecisiveness is part of the characters' various natures and that will also be a factor, especially since a new character can be both decisive, have a clear point of view, and be a lot more comfortable pissing off the rest of the party to assert it. So: if Bells Hells as they currently stand can decide what to do quickly, no need to break up! But if they can't, yeah, it would be to their and the story's benefit to do so. That's before we get into, for example, the sacrifice required from specifically Imogen or Fearne for the Arch Heart's plan; Ashton is not the one who has to risk their own autonomy for the rest of eternity. They might die in battle, but they will not become a husk housing an ancient hunger. I think the people who might have to do so get to decide.

Now: it may seem counterintuitive to demand a clear direction from a TTRPG, when part of the appeal is that we don't know how it will end, but the thing is, with the past campaigns, we did not know if the party would succeed but we knew that they wanted to do. Vox Machina could have fallen to Vecna but we always knew they were going to fight Vecna. The Mighty Nein's decisions not to get involved with the war are not indecision but rather a very clear decision (do not get involved). Their later reversal of that decision similarly follows from who they are and the richness of their pasts.

Bells Hells does not have that, and the endless circular conversations are both circular in game and a vicious cycle out of it; because we've always been focused on this plot from very early on and because the characters were not developed as strongly, we have a lot of very indecisive people who are too trapped in this crisis to develop and become decisive. In a way, it feels like Matt's been something like the Arch Heart here: saying "oh, THIS would be interesting, I wonder what will happen" at everything when it's like "ok but consequences are like, important, and maybe you should let things play out. I mean, two cycles isn't great but it is still only two; maybe you should actually let your children/players figure this out, even if it doesn't fit your idea of what should happen, instead of throwing yet another new thing at them."

So: I don't know and I don't have answers about Campaign 3 events at this point because, again, as someone who has a pretty good sense of what makes for a satisfying narrative, it has frequently subverted those requirements (which, to be clear, is bad - it's not genre subversion or a masterful play on expectations, it's subverting actual satisfying narrative beats; as someone said on one of my other posts in not quite so many words, it's like storyline-baiting). I know I tend to present my points with confidence, and I am pretty confident about a lot of things like CR lore and said sense of narrative, but like...maybe this guess on the fandom vibe is incorrect, but I think I'm getting these questions because people are saying "hey, do you know where we're going? I think I am reading this map wrong" to me and I'm here to say "no, you're reading it fine, we've gone off the road and are just kinda crashing through underbrush, and maybe we'll hit another road and continue on that and I can give some insight, but also we might go off a cliff, no way to tell."

[edenfenixblogs]

hey, gentile here. just came across this post of yours and, first of all- it's SUPERB. it showed me a perspective on being a jewish ally that i really wouldn't ever have considered by myself, made me more confident in my choice to put combating jew-hatred above the friendships I've recently lost, and gave me a really useful direction on where to go as an ally to jewish people onwards. that being said, there's a few details about it I'd like to press you about, if it's not too much trouble.

this point is probably worthy of an eyeroll as i'm a culturally christian atheist (making a concious effort to not be *that* kind of atheist), but: when you refer to G-d as the creator of all things, you stress that that includes evil- but that, in so doing, G-d is not evil themself. now, I'm asking this with the express purpose of you correcting me, so: why does this G-d- as a G-d fundamentally distinct from the Christian conception of God as a Super-Mega-Ultra-Perfect God Who Can Do No Wrong Ever- create evil? i, personally, have been led to believe by @/spacelazarwolf that it is simply because G-d, too, makes mistakes just like any human being, but the way you worded it in this paragraph (which I've included as a screenshot below) had me interpret G-d creating evil as a concious, intentional action. did i just not read it correctly? and, if i didn't, then is the reason G-d creates evil part of this central struggle you went in detail into in the same paragraph, and as such, a very individual part of Jewish belief that no two jews agree on? and if that is so, would you be comfortable with sharing your version of it?

a few paragraphs after that one, you dedicated many words to make it absolutely crystal clear that, in the process of unlearning and combating jew-hatred in the society around me, i should, in spite of the vitriol that they propagate, love the former friends i lost to antisemitism. how- and *why* should i love the people who, on an early october 8th morning, actively celebrated the news of a massacre of Israeli civilians? who mocked- and still mock- the survivors and the families of hostages? who wield the memory of the holocaust as a baton against Jewish people's right to self defense? who deify terror groups who are up to their necks in atrocities? who make an active effort to spit on the face of *reality?* How could i possibly look at the face of a friend who chose allegiance to a terrorist group she did not even know existed four months ago over me- who she had actively interacted with for much longer?

would you rather we called ourselves "gentiles" or "goyim?" I've been calling myself a gentile for the longest time because i see jamming a word from a language i don't speak at all in an otherwise english sentence to be disrespectful and constitute appropriation, but you and other jumblr blogs have given me the impression that that is not the case. furthermore- i believe it was @/bambahalva who pointed out the usage of the word "gentile" in antisemitic segregation policies.

that is all- i hope this message finds you well. oh, yeah one more thing- what do you think of The Forward news network? i came across them by chance and next thing i knew I'd gotten into their newsletter.

WARNING: I HAVE FINISHED WRITING THIS AND IT'S LONGER THAN I EXPECTED AND ALSO MORE JEWISH THAN I EXPECTED LOL! I have done the most Jewish possible thing I could do and answered all of your questions with questions. I'm sorrryyyyyy! This is what happens when you grow up surrounded by rabbis and future rabbis! LMAOO

Oooh! What a good ask! I love this ask. OK, so! Let's go in order.

First of all, thank you so much for your kind words. And thanking you for backing your words with the action of prioritizing kindness over hatred. It matters. More than I can ever explain. Thank you.

You know, it's funny. People ask me a lot of questions about i/p that they think will have simple and straightforward answers that just don't. And I end up writing a lot of essays because of this. The questions you wrote me seem like they should be complex, but feel relatively straightforward to me.

Now, to your first bullet point: I don't know. I truly do not know. I think that G-d is fundamentally just...G-d, and in so being, G-d is truly unknowable to me. I think many Jews have many different interpretations on why G-d creates evil. I'm no rabbi, but one of my BFFs is and so is her mother and great grandfather. That doesn't give me any kind of authority. It just means I've spent a lot of time thinking about theological questions like this. As for my perspective, I'm a progressive/reform Jew, not a humanistic Jew. I do actually believe in G-d, but I vibe with the community philosophies of Humanistic Judaism a lot. So that's the perspective I'm coming from here:

I'm not a particular fan of the Book of Job, because I think it gets twisted and interpreted in Christian ways more than most Hebrew books and it can too easily be twisted into a "Don't question G-d, because G-d is perfect" narrative that I find to be fundamentally at odds with how I practice Judaism. Also, it's just a very sad story about how a good and kind man lost everything, and it makes me sad to think about. HOWEVER, that traditional "Don't question G-d" narrative is not how I learned to think about that book. The way I learned it, I believe the Book of Job describes this issue most explicitly. After Job loses everything he holds dear and talks to all his friends and begs again and again "Why? Why did G-d do this to me? Why would G-d do this to me when I'm a good person?" And basically G-d hears everyone answering for G-d with various reasons, "Maybe you were bad." "Maybe you should make an offering" Maybe this. Maybe that. And eventually G-d responds from within a storm (paraphrased of course) 'Why the fuck do you think it's your business to know? I made the whole universe! I made everything you see. I made the world that gave you your family in your first place. Why do you think you get to question my motives?'

The way I always interpreted that is: I don't fricking know! It's not really my business. What am I gonna do? Stop G-d? How does my knowing why G-d creates evil help anything? It doesn't mean we don't question G-d. It means we should instead focus on what we CAN control. I can't make 10/7/2023 not happen any more than I could stop The Holocaust or form an ocean. That's divine business, not human business. What I CAN do is make the world better now. What use is it challenging things that we cannot change? Things that are in the past? What's the point of asking why bad things happen when we can instead focus on stopping more bad things from happening. G-d named us his people when Abraham fought with G-d to stop the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham repeatedly asked, "But are you sure? But what if there are 100 good people? 50 good people? 10 good people?" And G-d kept responding, basically, 'I mean, there aren't. I know this cuz of how I'm G-d and know all the things. But knock yourself out looking.' My interpretation of this was that G-d doesn't get mad when we do our utmost to help our fellow human beings. G-d gets mad when we waste our energy that we could be using to help our fellow man to instead be angry and rage futilely against the past. I say this as someone with PTSD as someone who attempted to stop a tragedy from occuring and failed and can never understand why. What informs my trauma and what makes it so hard to get past isn't that G-d allowed it to happen. It's that people did. It's that I begged for help before it happened--over and over and over to dozens of adults in various positions of authority in order to prevent this terrible thing from happening (no, I will not now or ever disclose what that thing is). And all the people who could have helped failed me, and now two people are dead. Because someone did an evil, evil thing. And a bunch of other people let it happen. I'm not mad at G-d. I'm mad at people. And yet, I also know that hating people and finding reasons to dismiss them and despise them is what leads to more tragedies like that happening. So, despite my rage, truly the only thing to do is to love people. It's the only that helps. It's the only thing that repairs the world. It's the only thing that we can control. So, in short, my answer to "Why does G-d create evil?" is "Why should I spend my valuable time on earth trying to answer that question when, instead, I can spend that same exact amount of time asking millions of people, 'How can I help? What's wrong, and how can I help make any part of it better?'?" We don't need to understand G-d to make the world a better place. I'm fine leaving G-d stuff to G-d and spending my time on the human stuff.

Now, your second bullet point. Love their souls. You don't have to love what they've done. But they are human beings, as are we all. I think this can also easily be twisted into the Christian framework of "Hate the sin, love the sinner," but that's not what I mean at all. People's evil deeds are a part of them. They need to take responsibility. There is no divine absolution for crimes that people do unto each other in Judaism. If you harm a person, G-d cannot forgive you for that. Only the person or people you harmed can forgive you. And to a certain degree, we are all defined by our actions toward others. And so, no. I do not forgive the terrorists who woke up and decided to kill a bunch of Israelis and Israeli-adjacent humans. I do not forgive those who celebrate the deaths of Israelis because of some misguided sense of justice. I do not forgive the people who continue to send me hatred and death threats day after day after day after day. And I do not love the parts of them that did and do those horrible, unforgivable things. But my goodness. They were babies once. They either had parents who love(d) them, which is so sad, because they have this life of love and they chose instead to fill it with so much hate. Or they didn't have any parents or loved ones or anyone to guide them and, my goodness. That is so sad. How terrifying and alone that must feel. Maybe they have friends and family who love them and are instead wasting their precious time on this planet directing their energy at raging against me and 15 million other Jews they've never met. Or maybe they don't have anyone who loves them and they think that hating me and harming me will bring them some sense of purpose and joy. What a horrid way to live.

My Grandpa died last year. I have a wonderful family for whom I'm very grateful, and I even have good memories with my Grandpa. But he was not a good person. He came from an abusive home, and weaponized that abuse on his loved ones until he drove them all away. He was a narcissist. Not in the pop psychology sense. But in the actual clinical sense. He ruined every relationship that ever mattered to him--personal and professional. And in the end, because of his own actions, he died alone. He had pushed everyone so far (often with legal threats and action) that when he died, he laid on a slab for weeks because nobody could figure out who to call, because he had no one left. (For reference, Jewish burials are supposed to happen rather quickly and two weeks is...not good.) He was the only person in his generation who was not born in Israel--my family on his side has lived in Israel since looooong before even the British Mandate and he was the only person in his family born and raised in the US. As far as we can tell, the family on that side has been in Israel for as long as Jews have existed. He was religious. And while I've never been to Israel or met any of my family there, he did go. And he kept in touch with his relatives there before driving them away too. He was a wealthy man, but convinced himself that everyone only wanted him for his money and then decided to horde it instead. He left nothing to his children or to me. He left all his money in an endowment to his university--a place that uses that money to fund anti-Israel organizations now. He died alone, without his family that lived nearby, and with a legacy that will now cause active harm to the family that lived far away. He could have died surrounded by the loved ones from around the world who wanted nothing more than to be near him and loved by him. His story is a tragedy. The story of every person who chooses hatred over love is a tragedy. The story of someone who woke up and chose to murder others or to delight in the death of others is a tragedy. I love the soul in the center of these people. I loved my grandfather. I could not be around him. I cannot forgive some of the things he said and did. But I love the person he could have been. I love the part of him that gave me some good memories. I love the family he gave to me.

No, we do not all need to love or forgive those who have wronged us or terrorized us or murdered our loved ones. But that is different from mourning a human soul. From loving the potential of a human soul to do good in the world, and mourning the loss of that soul and its potential. Every human being--every single one no matter what they have done in their lives--has the potential to create goodness and make the world a better place. Every moment of every single day is a new chance to meet that challenge and do our best. Sure, not all of us have it in us to try our best every single moment. Sometimes life is hard and we're sad and tired and hungry and angry. And that's ok, because we have tomorrow, and an hour from now, and a minute from now. But the moment someone chooses to take action and decides that action should be to cause another harm or celebrate the harm that was caused? That's a tragedy. And when a life is extinguished, that is a life that loses its potential to try again and do better. We shouldn't love people because we deem them worthy of love. We should love people because they are people. And so are we. And how wonderful is that? I could choose to hate them. It would be so easy! But why should I do that? What do I gain? What do they gain? And isn't it so wonderful that I chose to love instead? And isn't it so wonderful that you can, too?

As for your final bullet point: I have no preference. I say goyim cuz it's easier for me. Goy/gentile/non-Jew are all fine to me. I have some icky feelings about the word gentile for a variety of linguistic reasons I won't bore you with. But some other people don't like when non-Jews appropriate Yiddish words. Others (including me) find it wonderful when non-Jews call themselves goyim. All my closest non-Jewish people call themselves goyim, including my sister! Non-jew is the most neutral in English and least likely to offend anyone. But it still separates Jews as an other whereas "goy" is a way to distinguishing yourself from Jews while also being an acknowledgment of our culture. As far as I'm concerned as long as a goy is being a goy (ally, positive) rather than a goy (derogatory) I don't mind that they call themselves goyim. LOL! Idk, friend. Do what makes you happy! What do you prefer?!

Regarding The Forward news network: They are a reliable Left-Center source with a high credibility and reporting rating and only one failed fact check in the past five years for which they issued a correction. I would consider them a reliable source. They cover legitimate issues of people who support Palestinan self-determination ostensibly being punished for their stances. They publish Op-eds critical of Netanyahu, who is terrible. And they address how antisemitism is harming diaspora Jews. They seem to consistently emphasize the humanity of everyone, which you can tell based on the rest of my post is very important to me, but they also avoid over-editorializing on news that is not in the Op-Ed section. I'll never endorse any source as perfect or guaranteed to be free of problems or harm or bad takes, but they do seem to make a genuine effort to be factual, clear, and wholly truthful. Note: I highly recommend that everyone installs the Media Bias/Fact Check extension on their web browsers. Get in the habit of checking and evaluating sources critically. It's a skill that will serve you your whole life.

@clawdia-houyhnhnm I hope this helps. And thank you for your thoughtful ask and commitment to intercultural understanding. <3

[leonardhoee]

William Rex MBTI Analysis

I just finished William’s route for the 4th time and wanted to write this since I see a ton of people on the personality database website mistyping him.

William is a classic Entj 8w7 tbh and I think the reason people aren’t clocking it is because of the stereotypes surrounding that personality type. Not every entj 8w7 is a demon war criminal with no feelings or morals. As one myself I saw a lot of myself in William with the way he thinks and operates and his values. He also reminds me a lot of Sylus from Love and Deepspace and that’s what made me start questioning the typing they have for him right now. Both him and Sylus are “healthier”representations of that personality type and are more in touch with their Fi.

If this makes sense to you guys please go to the PDB website and vote ENTJ 8w7 for Will so we can get it corrected.

Analysis under the cut.

1. Extraverted Thinking (Te):

Te is the primary way TeNi’s interact with the world around them. Te is all about efficiency and getting things done. It is the TeNi’s primary decision-making process, which means that if a decision is needed in the moment, they will rely on what makes the most sense logically.

William’s Te is at the forefront of his personality. Most of the info about him comes from the full love bonus story from reading both endings. In that story something that really stuck out to me was his statement, “I will make this power obey my will, control it, and tame it,”. He’s saying this in response to his moral dilemma about his power being able to take away people’s freedom. Rather than lament his ability to control others, which he considers a contradiction to his core values, he chooses to impose order on this chaos. A true monarch. His immediate response is to take control with no hesitation. His fate should’ve been a threat to him so his response is to become the master of his own curse.

On top of that, his sense of justice is incredibly firm but at the same time he believes in the ends justifying the means. He uses his powers as a tool for punishing those he deems to be oppressors, stating that those who trample on freedom are “unforgivably evil.” Furthermore, his Te ensures that his sense of justice is actionable. He doesn’t just hold abstract ideals; he transforms them into concrete systems, and actively uses his powers to enforce justice for those who violate his moral code.

Basically, all his decisions and values are rooted in clear, rational frameworks, where he sees himself as the ultimate arbiter of morality. This efficient, results-driven perspective is absolutely Te dominant.

2. Introverted Intuition (Ni):

Ni is the way that a TeNi perceives their inner world, it dictates the way they store information and how they perceive that information. It also heavily dictates the path that their train of thought will take.

William’s Ni is interesting because it shows up in his fixation on the concept of destiny and freedom. He recognizes the irony of his existence: born to value freedom above all else, yet cursed with powers that inherently strip others of theirs. But because of his age dominance, this contradiction doesn’ paralyze him but instead motivates him to enforce his moral philosophy with conviction and to use the hand date has dealt him to do so. His Ni allows him to create a unified vision of justice and morality, framing his powers not as a curse but as an opportunity to shape the world according to his ideals. His long-term perspective is evident in his acceptance of his role as a “villain,” choosing to happily shoulder the consequences of his actions rather than compromising his vision. This is evident throughout his whole route when he asks MC to record his sins as an irredeemable villain to make sure that the legend of the self righteous monarch lives on for generations even after he’s met his end.

3. Extraverted Sensing (Se):

Se helps the TeNi use their senses to understand the world around them. They enjoy living in the moment and are capable when it comes to dealing with things that they can experience and touch in addition the purely hypothetical. This is because their Ni and Se fall in the middle as far as preferences go, so they’re able to flip back and forth to use each one as it’s needed. Se is also what drives them to search out playful new sensory experiences.

William is shown to take pleasure and satisfaction in the way he delivers his punishments. The route makes a point of describing his eyes and the way William takes pleasure in his own ferocity during these punishments. He doesn’t just want to “get it over with” he wants to have the full experience of commiting the sin. His ability to focus on the tactile and sensory aspects—the sights, sounds, and even the emotions evoked—demonstrates a strong tertiary Se. And this tertiary Se doesn’t only manifest in his violent acts—it also shows in his appreciation for beauty, art, music and even sex (Ex: the scene of him eating strawberries in the cafe with MC, his passion for music, his interest in connecting with people from all walks of life). He’s the type of person to savor physical pleasures and immerse himself in the present moment of those things.

4. Inferior Introverted Feeling (Fi):

Fi is the ENTJ’s last function. Fi helps them to assess situations to see how things match up to their values and beliefs. They may think of their Fi as their “gut instinct”. It helps them learn to be sensitive to the values and feelings of those around them. It can act as a warning system when they think a decision makes sense logically, but somewhere inside, Fi is the alarm saying it’s a bad idea. However, because Fi is the TeNi’s weakest function, they will often act with the swift decisiveness of Te first, before considering how their actions might affect the feelings of others or taking time to think about whether their decision lines up with their values.

So there’s 2 points that can be made regarding this. The first part is about his morals.

Despite his rational exterior, William’s deep internal conflict over his powers points to his inferior Fi. He considers his ability to control others a profound moral contradiction, as it conflicts with his core belief in freedom. However, instead of sitting and agonizing over this emotional struggle openly, he rationalizes it through his Te-dominant framework, and to simply become its master. Also his repeated acknowledgment of contradictions in his existence shows the tension between his powers and his values. He says in the bonus story, “I gave them freedom and found joy in watching them love that freedom, yet I would be the one to take it away again.” This self-awareness highlights his internal struggle, but his default response—to let people go for the sake of their freedom—reflects his Te- dominance rather than an emotionally motivated decision. He will let them go even if it breaks their heart.

This leads me to my second point about this. When falling in love with MC, William was faced with a dilemma. Being with her would, in his point of view take away her freedom which is a sin he refused to commit. However instead of spending the time unpacking that he immediately jumped to his ate function and did what he deemed rational in that moment which was to decide to leave as he always does. It’s interesting because his inferior Fi shows up in both ways, staying true to his values, but also having a massive oversight on MC’s feelings and desires in that moment and causes her a lot of pain. And that oversight remains until she (in ch 18) almost takes control of the situation even above him and shows him what she wants through a very blunt display (getting stabbed).

Enneagram Analysis: 8w7

William’s need for freedom and disdain for oppression are hallmarks of Type 8. He refuses to let fate, his powers, or external forces define him, asserting instead, “I couldn’t let something like fate deny me of being my own master.” This fierce independence drives his actions, from punishing oppressors to letting others go to protect their freedom. However, his control is not limited to himself; as an 8, he extends his authority outward, enforcing his moral vision on those he deems unjust and encourages everyone around him to become their own masters as well.

Between 8w7 and 8w9, William would be a 7 because of his Se. His boldness and ability to captivate others with his convictions make him a natural leader. This wing also amplifies his avoidance of emotional vulnerability, as seen in his tendency to rationalize rather than process his internal contradictions.

Why William Is Not an ENFJ or INFJ because those are the other 2 I’ve heard people saying.

Both ENFJs and INFJs are defined by their reliance on Extraverted Feeling (Fe) and a focus on interpersonal harmony. William, by contrast, prioritizes efficiency and justice over emotional connection, ruling out both types.

• Not ENFJ: ENFJs are people-oriented leaders who seek to unite and inspire others. While William’s charisma might seem ENFJ-like, his approach to supporting others is far more authoritarian and pragmatic. He enforces his ideals unilaterally, without the Fe-driven need to create collective harmony or prioritize the feelings of others. He says so himself in the bonus story that the things he does are out of self righteousness only. Entjs and enfjs can often get confused but the differentiation is that he helps others because he’s honoring HIS desires. He’s not doing it because of some grand desire to help others.

• Not INFJ: While William grapples with moral contradictions, his struggles are rooted in rational frameworks, not emotional exploration. Furthermore, INFJs tend to avoid direct confrontation, whereas William thrives in it. Additionally INFJs are Se inferior which is the main reason it’s ruled out. William is not Se inferior at all.

Why William Is Not a 7w8 or 1w9

• Not 7w8: While William’s charisma and love for freedom might align with 7w8, his motivations do not fit this type. 7w8s are driven by a desire to avoid pain and seek enjoyment, whereas William’s actions are rooted in a need for control and justice. His moral philosophy is too rigid for a 7w8, which would prioritize adaptability and personal pleasure.

• Not 1w9: Type 1s are perfectionists who pursue moral ideals through discipline and self-restraint. William is the opposite of self restraint. While he has a strong moral code, it is not driven by a desire for perfection or self-discipline but by a a self righteous desire. He says many times throughout the route that if MC thinks he is evil she is free to punish him how she wishes. He has never said he is a good or moral person and in fact says the opposite. He’s a villain doing what he values. His willingness to accept his role as a “villain” further supports his ENTJ 8w7 classification. He views himself as a necessary force of justice, even if it means being seen as cruel or self-righteous. His statement, “I followed my heart and chose to commit sins as a villain,” reveals his willingness to embrace moral ambiguity in pursuit of his ideals.

So in conclusion he’s an obvious ENTJ 8w7

Here are some screenshots I used as evidence

[ensemblesongs]

I gotta say I’m really disappointed that you have decided to partake in this ridiculous boycott that is built on lack of research and racism. I can’t find it in myself to support someone who openly supports hate towards the Ryukyuan people and Japanese people. I wish you the best in real life but I strongly urge you to do proper research before blindly following the wolves in sheep’s clothing who pretend to care about racial discrimination.

I understand why you might feel this way. I'm sure that there are misguided people amongst the bunch, or people who are only participating in a performative way. But what Happy Elements has done felt malicious and hurt me and many others with their lack of consideration for long-term fans, and most importantly, their lack of sensitivity. Do you not see the issues in how this narrative is being handled...? I'm uncertain on what you mean by hate towards Japanese people. Addressing the country's past, and the company's failures, is not hating on an entire ethnic group. Maybe you've seen things on social media that I haven't. If you'd like, you can give me more of your perspective to enlighten me. The plea for me to research is also a little vague...💦

Real-life Ryukyuan (and Ainu, who are not the same, but have shared a similar pain), and other indigenous people have expressed support of this boycott, what about their perspective? Does it not matter? They don't speak for every single one, but I think it's worth taking into consideration, nonetheless. I'm not blindly following anyone, even if there are people that I trust more than I trust myself when it comes to knowledge on certain topics because they know more than I do, I have tried to do my own research, too — and I know that Ibuki's story is reflective of that of the experience of many real Ryukyuan people, a choice that they make themselves. I have a more hopeful view about this situation than most. Still, I do not trust Happy Elements with this decision due to their history of actual racism and failure to address these subjects with the necessary care, though I see their attempts to in stories like Matrix. (Which is a story I don't hate nearly as much as the average person does and don't see as OOC, either, and only really found problems with the Takashi subplot being unnecessary and the village's plot-twist. The wave of hate over a story most didn't even read themselves was quite peculiar. This is different.)

There is a clear bias in the writing room as seen in many other stories, even when it isn't hatred there is a feeling that there's more fascination towards the subject of racial minorities than care, and this was the final straw for many fans. I don't think it's wrong for Rinne to be written to have internalized racism, even if it's being written by Japanese authors. Similarly, I am not upset at the concept of Ibuki being involved with AKATSUKI. I was actually excited at the prospect of them interacting more, I'm more so upset at the execution and the imperialist undertones which are all too expected from a careless company like they have been for years. Not just that, but even if it wasn't racist, the desecration of AKATSUKI, a group that has been there since the beginning, with an utterly mischaracterized story that dumbs them down to their past selves and breaks promises the real Keito had made, and how HE continues to puppet their mangled corpses around for all to see, and the hatred Ibuki and possibly Chiaki Kobayashi will have to face because of this decision, one they knew no one would like, would remain. Not to mention, their audacity in trying to make the audience feel bad for disagreeing with this, making the characters say things along the lines of, "I'm sure fans will be upset".

I'm someone who loves Ansta. Deeply. I never aligned with people who hate it while being into it and always tried to have hope. So, I take my criticism of it seriously. When it comes to my activity on here, I'm doing the same I have for years, and I just thought people who are participating, and mean well, would benefit from what I post. I appreciate your kind wishes and I wish you well, too. Thank you for having supported Ensemble Songs.

[goodluckclove]

A Meandering Insight into Writing Stronger Dialogue

So I'm taking it easy today. It's cloudy in Portland and I would like to do some drawing. But I also thought I would do a weird new thing for me and maybe offer some writing advice into the void about creating stronger dialogue.

I've said before that I am easily angered by how most writing advice is phrased. At the same time, I get that for a beginning writer, my go-to guidance of "watch movies, read books, figure it out" can be like crazy intimidating. So I'm going to try and be more flexible. It might be helpful, it might not be.

There are a ton of information available about writing stronger dialogue. I've looked at a few videos and found an amount of useful tips. Listening to the way people talk is super useful, and eavesdropping on conversations in public places (without being a creep about it) is a super great way to do that. But for the most part I came away realizing that people giving advice on stronger dialogue are, almost entirely, just crazy biased.

Even the concept of "writing stronger dialogue" is - somehow both complicated and vague. It's dependent on genre. It's dependent on the era, the laws of the universe and the whims of the narrative as a whole. I can think of many examples in which part of what makes a story stronger is the fact that the dialogue is what some would consider "weak". One of the videos I watched had a man use Tommy Wiseau's The Room, a famously incoherent cult movie, as an example of bad dialogue.

And he's absolutely right! Part of the mystique behind the film and it's director/writer/producer/lead actor is that Tommy Wiseau insists he's born and raised in the United States, despite that just. Not being possible. So when he writes a script it turns meandering, disjointed, confused and deeply melodramatic. But when this well-meaning YouTuber revised a scene to be "stronger" in terms of dialogue between the two actors, it turned The Room from longstanding classic that still has ongoing showings at arthouse movie theaters, to some mediocre indie movie with nothing that really captures attention. It's clearer and more direct. The video creator claimed it was likely what Tommy Wiseau's original intent was. I would argue Wiseau's intention also involved a sense of soap opera emotional highs and lows - a tone that is not served a bland, weirdly subdued script revision.

I think asking "how do I write stronger dialogue" is a question a writer can only answer from within. The question to ask outside parties, perhaps those with more experience in the craft, is "how do I write dialogue that works better to fulfill my goals and the goals of my story"? You might not like the way I write my own dialogue, and that's fine. But it absolutely does what I want it to do, so I'd say the second question is one I can try to answer.

Be Honest With the Reader - And With Yourself

This is not an easy thing for me to do, but I'm going to have to call out a quirk I see a lot of newer writers do. I do it with love, because it's something I did myself a lot when I was starting out. You start writing and you form a character who's really cool, but they're also smarter than you are! Or funnier! Or more charming! What do you do???

It's an easy issue to face, and every time I see it I want to sit down with the writer and tenderly say Shh stop it. Change the character, the approach to the scene, or your perspective on how you write them. Stop going the way you're going it is almost certainly not going to be interpreted the way you want it to be.

It's the worst when I see people struggle with a character they view as "funnier than them". And they might try and crowd source for tips and tricks on how to be funny. And while I can see this potentially being a jumping off point to something useful, for the most part I find myself wanting to scream HEY DONT DO THIS THIS IS NOT HOW IT WORKS.

I'm not gatekeeping being Funny. I'm saying straight up that I truly think every human being has some sense of humor, even the ones that have been told enough by others to internalize that they "aren't funny". You are! If you have ever made yourself smile or laugh, you are funny! And more people than you think will also find you to be funny!

Humor is incredibly varied. Because of this, there is a Lot of comedy that will probably do nothing for you. You might be numb to prop comedy, for instance. So if you tried, unironically, with full sincerity, to write and perform a new prop comedy routine, it would very likely not turn out well. I personally am pretty attuned to inauthenticity in writing, and it's the easiest way for me to toss a book (or my whole TV if it's a movie or show) right out the window.

If you want to learn more about writing comedy, start with what makes you laugh. If it's something someone else wrote, maybe look into what that person says about comedy. The person who made you laugh will know more about helping you write comedy than a stranger online who might have an entirely different sense of humor.

Write What You Have a Frame of Reference For

I got told "write what you know" a lot when I was starting out. Usually by people that weren't writers, which makes sense, because that phrase is trash and it made me so angry. Because at 13, when I seriously started writing, I didn't know a ton of stuff. So feeling like I was that limited created a sense of distrust in myself that is just not helpful when you're starting out.

But if you rely on what you have a frame of reference for, things get a lot vaster, and only more expensive over time. You might not know anything about going though a divorce, or becoming an assassin, or turning into a vampire. But maybe you've had a falling out in a relationship, or you've started a new job in an industry you're unfamiliar with, or you've felt lonely and isolated and scared. If you focus on the latter, the way you connect to the circumstances on the narrative, it's way easier to craft compelling characters.

This is debatably less crucial for more experienced writers. I personally, after 10+ years in the medium, still find crucial to have some kind of investment and connection to every character I write, even if they're bad people.

If a character is smarter than you about a certain subject, don't focus directly on that. They're an expert in Quantum Biochemistry? Oh man you know anything about that. So if you aren't confident in your ability to learn and absorb enough on the field to have it be a plot-crucial element, maybe you're light on the references to that characters background and career in exchange for a greater emphasis on something that you have a better grasp on. Or you can narrow the scope - maybe your quantum biochemistry expert is a professor or a researcher, two careers that might be far more accessible. In many cases, micro is more impactful than the macro.

What you're able to do will naturally grow as you grow. And when you're starting out, you should absolutely feel welcome to be overambitious. Take risks, do something new, fuck up spectacularly and don't let that stop you. But if you're looking to improve something like dialogue, I would say it comes down the angle of the character that allows you as the writer to connect to them. Even if you don't agree with their actions. Even if you have nothing else in common with them. If you get some connection that makes the character something other than "person more interesting than I am" it becomes a LOT easier to write for them.

Also maybe don't take a majority of dialogue advice from people who exclusively engage in books and movies you hate. Don't do that. It doesn't matter they they went to film school. They will probably not help you.

[katzske]

EARTHSPARK SPOILERS ABOVE AND BELOW!

For a kids show, I'm glad that they're able to touch upon serious topics like the effect war has on individuals and, in this case, species. I think TFA is the only notable TF show that wiggled its finger and made clear yo these are fucking aliens. But even there it felt one sided, as in, robots finding organics gross.

In TFE, you get so many perspectives on the Cybertron- human relationship and I love is so much. You have people who embrace it and accept each others differences. You have those who have internalized xenophobia but don't notice. People who don't care and just wanna be themselves and live in peace. And those who outright HATE the other species.

Visuals: the first half had its animation mainly focused on action. and while there is still action here, the conclusion of the season offers a lot of cinematic shots which tbh kinda took out of the immersion but are awesome screenshot material. it gets really dark as well, and there is a shot with Bee that stood out to me, where he's hanging from a ceiling, and his expression is full of fear. It was grand.

Audio: You still have the same synth wave music (which I like) but you also get some amazing sound designs for animal based alt modes, like Grimlock and Tarantulas. Nightshade unfortunately has this repetitive sound playing whenever they fly, (hawk screech) since they don't have a motor IG??

Characters: The viewer will be introduced to Hashtag, Jawbreaker and Nightshade. They have distinct abilities and personalities. (By now, I can already tell that my favorite Terrans are Nightshade, Jawbreaker and Twitch lol). They're interesting characters and their dedicated episodes were quite entertaining.

The most notable new characters who actually have their dedicated episodes and voice lines are Shockwave and Tara. Shockwave, as you can see from my memes, is a raging classist and racist. He's pure evil. But I really enjoy him because he's so smug. Imagine TFA Shock's smugness but in higher dosage. I fucking love it. HIS VOICE HAS SO MUCH RANGE. reminds me of an evil DJ subatomic supernova. His eye also reminds me of shin godzilla's... an unrelenting blank stare, unnaturally wide. Tarantulas on the other hand takes a much different spin than his BW counterpart. I think he joined the cons and stuck with them is because he wanted equality for all (during a short convo between Megs and Shock it's implied that it was their original goal). He's sick of the war and just wants to survive. He wants to be himself. He does these typical cinema spider noises like hisses, or gargles in his alt mode BUT OH BOY in his robot mode he's one fine fella. And his voice. chef kiss. i think it's British, but can't pinpoint what region.

Plot: Earthspark is gonna build upon the concept which TFP poorly introduced: A villan human faction. TFE is building upon and further fleshing out what they tried to do with M.E.C.H. The execution so far looks very promising.

They have taken their time to introduce G.H.O.S.T for a whole season, and put a bit of effort into showing that the organization is made out of individuals who have different motivations.

Their official motivation is understandable. The "good guys" wanna protect civilians from threats, like bots who break shit. But ofc there are some nasty people in the ranks who are lowkey masochists lol

Also, since Cybertronians are known to the public, it deepens the complexity of the conflict. Xenophobia against Cybertronians ranges from this cooperation to just regular people, who are mad that their planet was turned into a battle ground.

[minniiaa]

Sorry if this seems repetitive but I haven't been active on social media in yearsss

Is it true that there's a lot of lawlu hate on tiktok and Twitter? I'm so confused because there used to be so much love for the ship back in 2017/2018 from my perspective (Amino era).

The short answer: yes and no. Let me start by saying I'm not the best person to answer this since I purely consume on twitter. I made my personal twitter in 2007 like it's everyone I've ever known irl and has nothing to do with shipping or hobbies and I follow approx 0 accounts related to anime, manga, or lawlu. I just looked up lawlu a few times and browsed and suddenly it's my whole fucking timeline and there’s no going back and now I have a lawlu twitter (This makes me very happy).

So if anyone else has an opinion on this that is more in the community, please feel free to comment away. Otherwise, below are my observations.

First off, there IS a ton of love for the ship. Most of what I see is beautiful art (they got the nsfw ayo), memes, fanfics, and headcanons just like tumblr. There are tons of comments of people swooning over these posts, Lawlu IS one of the most popular OP ships after all.

There's just a vocal minority that are very against the concept of shipping and in that subset there are those who are very against Lawlu. There people out there that will literally list accounts to block that ship lawlu or write lawlu DNI in their bios. The same can be said for other ships, it's not just this one it’s any they deem a ‘pro ship’ (problematic ship) and Lawlu is generally considered one of these. Below as is an example:

The biggest issues I’ve seen with Lawlu are the following 1. luffy is aroace and cant be shipped period 2. law groomed luffy and the age gap is gross. IMO I think most of these people are just infantilizing Luffy as some goofy autistic kid that doesn't know what love and sex are when in reality he's very self-aware and happy does not equal stupid. Also he's 19 he’s not underage. He met Law twice when he was 17, one of which was saving his life as a doctor and Luffy was unconscious most of this time. Let's not forget Luffy's a war criminal kicking the asses of people 4x his age in a pirate world, age doesn't really work the same as irl.

BUTTT Not that any of this matters because you can ship whoever the fuck you what because guess what? It's ~fiction~. I could rant about how people can ship whatever the hell they want all day but I'll save my breath for now. (my opinion of course)

Also there are just mentally ill people who enjoy telling others to kys if you like something they like do. Lawlu shippers are just their chosen target demographic. Creators get foul messages in their inboxes, rude comments, just general hater behavior. Twitter is just a firey cesspool and all fandoms have 'fans' who do nothing but hate. We live in an age of negativity where being a hater is the cool thing to do.

HOWEVER, I see more people posting about why those people are wrong and stupid than the actual negative tweets but maybe that's because I actually support the ship and the algorithm sees that. Not sure how twitter works, nor do I want to know about that dumpster fire there's a reason I came over to tumblr.

As for tiktok, I don't really consume a lot of tiktok so I can't speak on it besides seeing cosplayers and cute animations/art. I'll leave that to the tiktok people to look into.

For argument's sake, I went through the lawlu tag and picked some lovely tweets to share with you so you can see the toxicity for yourself. Sadly only 10 images per post but I think you get the point. Thanks for the ask hope this was informative. :)

[starlit1daydream]

Mages & Seers: Experience and Comprehension

Those who know, everybody. I love Seers - so this should be one hell of an analysis.

The Mage:Seer class dichotomy embodies experience, comprehension and knowledge of their Aspect. Their Quest and their role in the session revolves wholly around their personal comprehension of their Aspect; and the ways in which that may shift or change their (or others!) viewpoint.

I can't definitively say they're one of the Classes that say something about their session, beyond perhaps the concept that a Mage or a Seer will obviously have a well of knowledge on their Aspect present.

Canonical Mage players are Sollux Captor (Mage of Doom) and Meulin Leijon (Mage of Heart).

Canonical Seer players are Rose Lalonde (Seer of Light), Terezi Pyrope (Seer of Mind) and Kankri Vantas (Seer of Blood).

Point A. The narrative function of the Mage.

Mages know about their Aspect. They are that simple to understand. A lot of people will argue that the Mage is one of the more nebulous classes in Homestuck; and I'd argue this is because there really isn't much in the way of complexity with them. They've got a fairly straightforward relationship with their Aspect; having experienced it wholly throughout their life prior to the session.

It's almost, to me, as if their Aspect haunts them in a sense. We see this with Sollux's recurring visions of Doom and misfortune; considering that the Mages & Seers are meant to fill a sort of 'prophet' archetype.

Sollux is consistently depicted as knowledgeable on coding (a manifestation of Doom in the form of rigid order and regulation) and holding a vast well of knowledge and foresight on the topic of suffering. It's important to hold the distinction that Doom does not deal directly with absolute death (Time does), and so Sollux's visions are of the imminently doomed and the suffering, not the already deceased.

Meulin is a little more difficult to pin down, but inference from stray lines of dialogue and particularly her complex moirallegiance with Horuss give me some substance to work with. Toxic positivity? Alluded 'darkness' in her without elaboration? Her disability being inflicted directly as a result of her partner & lover? I think what we're looking at here is depression.

If Meulin has experience with Heart in all facets - this implies to me that she has a share of experience with emotion in all facets. Good and bad. And what better manifestation of poor emotional control than that? I think it's a very conclusive theory.

It becomes clear to me that Mages aren't absolute in their assertions, and so therein comes my theory that their quest involves an expansion of perspective and reconsideration of their knowledge. It is to accept that they may not understand their Aspect as thoroughly as once thought and subsequently grow to accomodate a wider worldview. They're stagnant, having experienced so much that they feel they have no further room to learn.

Point B. The practical function of the Mage.

This is a more difficult one to understand since neither Mage in the comic God Tiers and they aren't seen fighting much over the course of the story. Even when Sollux takes to action, he applies his psiionics rather than utilising Doom in any way.

My theory is that the application of a Mage is to inform. Mages & Seers may very well hold the same occupation broadly speaking, to accomodate for the gaps in co-players' knowledge and bring about newfound understanding. Being active players, the Mages presumably advance this through their own means. This is some of the most active conjecture I'll be writing, since we do not ever see a God-Tiered Mage in canon.

Point C. The narrative function of the Seer!

In case it wasn't obvious, I am very excited to get this segment done; after all, who better to talk on the topic of Seers than... a Seer?

Seers have a little more depth to their function involving their relationship with both their Aspect and its diemetric opposite. Seers begin their sessions holding a poor or deficient comprehension of their Aspect; to the point where they seek their opposite. The notion of their base Aspect comes into play fairly soon - though they may superficially seek their opposite, it is their Aspect they seek in actuality.

They do hold a certain level of foresight, but rather than the Mage's inherent comprehension, Seers tend to rely upon external sources and stimuli to further their understanding; Rose with the Horrorterrors, Terezi with Scratch & Aranea, and we can only guess with Kankri.

They are capable of having visions, though - as Rose & The Signless can both attest to!

Rose seeks Void. She seeks to breach the unknowable, catalogues the Zoologically Dubious and finds comfort in oblivion and the pursuit of ignorance. She resolves to leave the game to Void rather than seek its Light; at first.

Terezi seeks Heart. Her final speech to Vriska talks of her emotional insecurity and pursuit of self-assurance. She wishes most prominently for security in herself and her identity; and yet this manifests in a flawed pursuit of binary, deficient Mind.

Kankri seeks Breath. Having been coddled and patronised all his life, freedom is his ultimate aim. His rebellious spirit and compulsive boot-licking seem to be a direct manifestation of his desire to think for himself and be free in his direction. Kankri's a particularly interesting one given that he fucked up his quest, canonically.

...The Signless didn't, however. The Signless pursued unity through freedom his whole life.

Rose resolves to pursue knowledge through the unknown.

Terezi seeks logic through emotion.

All of them grow, the further they pursue their Session's aims, to understand their base Aspect. It's a reversal of the Mage's quest; the stagnant Mage must embrace diversity wheras the directionless Seer embraces their certain path.

Point D. The practical function of the Seer.

Apologies, this is going to be mostly just about Rose.

Rose's role in her session post-ascension is to understand and inform her session-mates about the most fortuitous path. Her visions allow her to comprehend Light and sift through the endless possibilities and synthesis of her Aspect to find the most precise outcome. They grow to be an indispensible well of knowledge; always learning and finding out their Aspect's truth.

Terezi does the same, albeit without ascending; her greatest moment of heroism is the prelude to the Retcon, which she directly causes. Terezi applies all of her knowledge of consequence, cause & effect to undo the resultant consequences of the actions taken by her sessionmates. She uses her comprehension of Mind to her utmost ability; which is why I find it gut-wrenching that she still believes she was never enough.

Kankri... does jack shit other than be a whiny little bootlicker, but The Signless certainly applies his Aspect for the greater good. The fire of his rebellion and his pursuit of unity and free communication on Alternia ignite the spark of revolution for generations to come; his quest for Blood bringing utmost comprehension and sight of unity.

Overall, this is one Class where the narrative:practical lines tend to blur a little, owing to the general non-combatant status of the Classes in general. Rose shows they're capable of using their Aspect in combat just as all players are; but it seems clear to me that they function the best as advisors.

Next week, I'll be elucidating on the Witches & Heirs; which will be an interesting one since it'll require me to actually understand what a Witch does. That should be fun.

Take care, everybody. I know nothing.