#my leading theories are twofold

[squeakadeeks]

i feel like my apartment is doing experiments on me bc every night they keep introducing new machines that are extremely loud and buzz at uneven intervals all night long. a few weeks ago there was this one that would buzz for 30 seconds and increase in pitch, then abruptly stop, stay off for about a minute, then start again non stop from about 10pm-6am, and last night there was a new one that didnt have any changing pitch but it was obscenely loud and would buzz for about a minute, then be off for a minute before starting up again all night long on repeat and i deadass barely slept because of it but im still just like..WHAT IS THE CAUSE D:

[dukeofankh]

Trying to find progressive masculine community is so exhausting.

I've flipped through local men's groups, trying to find places to explore masculinity in a chill, progressive setting. First of all, they mostly seem to be modelled after AA, and like, my gender isn't a debilitating addiction, it's part of my identity actually, but also, the invite and description of the event have maybe a short paragraph tops actually waving vaguely in the direction of what the purpose of the group is, and then ten to twenty paragraphs breaking down the rules. One spent longer talking about the hand signals he would use to direct conversation than he did describing what the conversation would be about. Another had a full paragraph explaining that if the group thought you were evading what they thought your "real" problem was, they'd probably "call you to take accountability". Like...I don't even know who these people are yet and they're already letting me know that they view it as their right, no, their duty, to bully me into seeing things their way. Like, this is in the invite.

...and this warning is there instead of any sort of breakdown of like, I dunno. Whether you should be a feminist to show up. Whether it was a safe space for queer men. What the hell they wanted to talk about. Joining a men's space is on some level inherently submitting yourself to the authority of the leaders of that group, and you don't usually get a particularly clear breakdown of what the values and goals of those leaders are, because on some level the answer is always going to be "whatever I want"

And like, unfortunately you do need to filter men to build a men's space. You do need to remove or chastise men who act in ways that are toxic or disruptive or misogynistic. If you don't things turn into an MRA chapter pretty quick. But the sort of emergency powers that leadership takes on as a result of that...just kind of naturally end up reproducing masculine heirarchies.

MensLib, the only online community of progressive dudes talking about masculinity that I'm aware of, is...on Reddit. So there is a moderator system. In theory, a moderator is there to...moderate. This is a space where people are going to be talking, and mods are there to make sure things don't get too toxic or off topic.

The issue is that, on some level, that is technically a leadership position. In a sub trying to rehabilitate masculinity. So you've got a bunch of folks who view themselves as the leaders of this bastion of goodness standing against the depredations of the misogynistic internet, guiding the hapless smooth-brain neophytes towards The True Way.

In practice, this looks like 95 percent of the posts submitted for the subreddit being rejected. That isn't hyperbole. On average, the sub has about one new post per day. Almost all posts directly relating a personal experience are deleted immediately, in favour of articles written about masculinity in traditional media publications, which are considered more trustworthy than the sus lived experiences of the guys in the sub. The post I wrote here about the effect of purity culture on male sexual shame that's sitting at about 15K notes was based on a 10K word post I wrote for Reddit that was deleted because "I didn't cite any sources to prove that there is a link between purity culture and male sexual shame, or that my experience was anything more than anecdotal". I get comments deleted on a regular basis, and after paragraphs of protesting in modmail that my comments are both fully in line with feminism and not against the rules, the mods have just finally told me that the rules don't actually drive their actions as a team. They delete anything they feel leads the conversation in a direction they personally feel is unproductive. The rule cited at the time of deletion is really just the broad category of why they decided to hit the button that says nobody is allowed to read what I wrote.

The issue is kind of twofold. First of all, progressive men do not trust other men. A good dude knows that he, individually, is a good person, but literally any other man external to him is on thin ice. Do you really want to tie your wagon to that guy? Do you trust him, really? How do you tell the difference between a guy criticizing an article because it's factually incorrect and criticising it because a woman wrote it? Probably best to play it safe and delete it. Weight of the odds, he's probably a misogynist, right? This is the internet.

And thats the other half of it. If you view yourself as part of the leadership of The Good Guys, and you're getting hatemail from incels and facists all day, you get to the point where most of the time people challenge your authority it's because they're a terrible person. It is very, very easy to get to the point where someone challenging you is seen as evidence that they are a bad person. And now someone is challenging you (and therefore bad), in an environment where you are in charge, and you have a "make your opponent disappear" button.

I know. A Reddit mod was rude to me and now I'm butthurt. It's petty and stupid. I'm just feeling like there's nowhere else to really go, and I'm pretty despondent that literally every space I've seen that even looks like it might be for progressive men has the same deeply hierarchical structure and constant status-oriented squabbling as patriarchal spaces.

[darkshrimpemotions]

The thing about conservatives and their conspiracy theory that "the libs" are trying to brainwash their children is that a) it's entirely 100% projection and assuming everyone operates the way they do, and b) what is actually happening is more akin to deprogramming than brainwashing.

Speaking from experience, growing up in a conservative family and community was a continuous, painful process of having my natural compassionate and empathetic responses stamped out of me.

I was constantly discouraged from seeing the humanity in others who didn't share my race, class, religion, or my parents' political beliefs. I was shamed and punished for every thought and action that didn't align perfectly with said beliefs. I was taught to avoid any information that contradicted those beliefs, and to fear and mistrust it if I couldn't avoid it completely.

And this wasn't done by providing all the teachings and then holding me to them, mind. I never recall having anything truly explained to me. No, the method of instruction was to wait for me to do something that fell outside of the narrow guardrails no one had ever shown me, then yell and pearl clutch and bombard me with horror and disappointment that I had said/done/thought such an "awful thing." Again, without ever explaining why it was awful.

This process gradually taught me to view the world primarily in terms of my own emotions, and to view those emotions as the voice of God--as long as they aligned with conservative values. And since I was being trained like a dog to experience discomfort, shame, fear, and distress whenever I encountered anything or anyone that didn't align with those values, I was basically innoculated against critical thinking and basic facts.

The result of all this was twofold. Firstly, though I didn't stop having questions or doubts about the ideas I was being taught, I felt intense guilt and shame whenever I had them. Secondly, I began to perceive anyone else questioning my beliefs as an attack on everything I was.

The last thing that was done to me--by parents, teachers, preachers, and eventually friends, because we all learned to do it to each other--was to make me acutely aware and terrified of how my community would see and treat me if I ever strayed from the beliefs we now shared. After a lifetime of being trained to hang my entire self-worth and moral compass on how conservative authority figures reacted to me, I was presented with an image of lifelong shame and disappointment. Utter loneliness. A chasm between myself and everyone I knew that would never be bridged. And of course, eternal suffering and separation from them after death.

Yeah, the death-cult of Christianity was a whole other can of worms on its own, but its lessons and methods ultimately reinforced the conservative brainwashing, and vice versa.

In contrast, becoming a "liberal" (read: someone whose beliefs are rooted in facts and who cares about people more than ideology) was a very internal, very self-guided process. Nobody was actually pushing me to believe one thing over another. What actually happened was: I got distance from that community and their constant reinforcement; I got access to the information that I was kept away from as a child; I encountered people with different views and backgrounds and saw that they weren't evil monsters; I was encouraged to decide for myself what I thought, and learn to defend that thought with information.

And yes...that did lead me away from the conservative beliefs of my family and childhood community. Because those beliefs could not stand up to the smallest amount of critical thinking or actual facts.

It still took me over a decade of being separated from that community to unlearn all of those trained responses. Hell, I'm still unlearning some of them. I still struggle with the loss of that community. I still have an intense emotional reaction I have to work through before my thinking kicks in, whenever I am presented with information that contradicts what I thought I knew. I still come across thoughts or negative associations I have with various people, ideas, etc. only to realize those are unexamined holdovers from my upbringing. Like moving a piece of furniture and finding all the crumbs and other nastiness your vacuum's been missing.

But the key thing here is, the process of becoming who I am today wasn't brainwashing. It wasn't even, now that I lay it out, true deprogramming. It was more like recovery. A long and arduous process for which I often needed support, but which was ultimately completely led by and up to me. I had to want to get better. And I did. So I did.

Which is why I can say for certain that what conservatives are doing now is absolutely 100% about removing as many avenues as possible for doubts and questions to lead to critical thinking. That's why they're hamstringing teachers, banning books, pushing revisionism in the teaching of U.S. history, attacking queer children, doubling down on anti-intellectualism, deregulating child labor. They know that exposure to diversity and access to real information and education is a tried and true path out of their cult mentality. And they can't allow that path to exist.

[voxofthevoid]

I don't know if you've answered this before, but do you have any other characters you ship Yuuji and Gojo with or are they exclusive for you? What do you think of ItaFushi or SatuSugu for example, their other popular ships?

It's come up in general a few times, I think. I've had a couple of anons ask whether I ship sukugo or tojogo (solid no for both) and another about my thoughts on Yuuji ships.

(In shocking news, Tumblr search continues to be useless.)

The short version is that goyuu is the only ship I'm well and truly obsessed with; they haunt my waking and sleeping hours, etc etc. They're not exclusive for me though—more like, half of them isn't. I ship Yuuji with a lot of characters (in theory at least; I don't read much in JJK). But goyuu is the only Gojou ship I like. I avoid everything else. This tends to be a pattern for me across fandoms, actually.

My thoughts on itafushi are covered in that Yuuji ships post I linked above. But expanding on that some more, I really love its tragic elements. The way it's consistently love for each other that leads them into some of their worst experiences. Yuuji eats the finger and later dies to save Megumi even before developing any deep bond with him, and Yuuji's impact on Megumi is pronounced throughout the aftermath, especially during the Goodwill event (his dialogue with Kamo, for instance). And post-Shibuya, Yuuji's self-imposed isolation is born from concern for Megumi to a large degree, and Megumi ignoring that concern and deciding to stick with Yuuji is what ultimately leads to Sukuna's incarnation (the Tsumiki-Yorozu mess determines the timing, yes, but the situation was their making too). Depending on the current state of Megumi's soul, I'd like to see some final interaction between them. Feed us some tragedy, Gege.

No one's asked me about satosugu before, so here we go: People who like Getou Suguru and/or satosugu, stop reading here.

I loathe it. It's the only JJK ship that makes me hiss on sight. Like I said, I avoid all non-goyuu Gojou ships, but I don't care if my eyeballs accidentally land on, say, nanago or sukugo. Satosugu, however, turns me into this:

The reasons are twofold. One, satosugu is so ubiquitous that you literally cannot avoid it no matter how many filters you use. It's the first time I'm understanding how it must have been to be a non-stucky shipper in post-2014 MCU fandom, but man, I didn't want to understand. I did start out with just garden-variety distaste for satosugu, but that only lasted till the 100th or so evasion of my block filters. Two, I can't stand Getou. Pre-villainhood, he's fine—well written and interestingly flawed. Post-villainhood? He pisses me off (that's its own essay that I won't get into here). The only characters I dislike more than Getou in JJK are Mahito and Naoya.

Gojou, in contrast, is my second-favorite character after Yuuji. The combination of Character I Adore/Character I Loathe means I run the hell away from the ship.

(For those of you who like Gojou and/or satosugu and read my fics: None of this will show in my writing, don't worry. These days, I'm fairly good at treating characters I dislike fairly, as my MCU fics show).

[aesethewitch]

Image ID: A reply from @le-violoniste-du-diable that reads: "Why organize by date and not topic? What's the purpose? How can you find anything if it's not grouped together by subject?"

I was going to leave a reply beneath this question I got on my note-taking post, but it was getting really long, so I decided to turn it into its own post. Because these are good questions!

I recommend writing raw, in the moment notes for studying or experimentation by date instead of topic for a few reasons.

The first reason is to prevent writing paralysis and/or shame over jumping between topics or dropping a topic altogether. I find that putting a date and title on things and letting that be enough without worrying about putting something in the "right" category or making it "look good" makes it easier to focus on the notes themselves. These notes aren't for an aesthetic or even for a formal reference book. They're for me to remember what I learned or thought about on a particular day.

Which leads to my second reason. Writing in a linear fashion helps me remember things. Due to time blindness, I struggle with recognizing my progress and remembering when I did things. Taking notes in date order helps me recall when I took them and keep time on a greater scale.

The third reason is kind of twofold. I recommend writing raw notes in date order instead of by topic to prevent leaving excessive blank pages and running out of room. When I take a notebook meant for experimental notes and put page dividers or sections in, I always run out of room in one place and leave too much space in others. It's a waste of space. I can't know in advance how many notes something will take up.

If I pick up a book and reserve 20 pages to it and drop it immediately, that's 20 blank pages. See point #1 regarding shame. On the other hand, if I look briefly into a new topic that I end up fixated on, even dedicating a whole section of notebook to it might not be enough space. Then, my notes end up separated anyways.

The fourth reason is for memory reasons again. Sometimes, I want to look back on the things I researched and learned in a given year. My raw note-taking notebooks are organized by year for a reason. Once a year ends, even if the notebook isn't full yet, I start a new one. This lets me open up a notebook and read through my old thoughts in the order I had them, seeing a linear progression of my growth.

As for your questions about how to find things, that's what the titles and descriptions are for. The entry titles should be short and descriptive. "Notes about Spells" won't get you very far. "Personal Theories about Spell Paradigms" is much, much better. Not to mention, they should be large and obvious. The descriptions go into more but still brief detail, allowing easy skimming to figure out if a set of notes are the ones you're actually looking for.

The other part of finding things and linking pages is the page numbers. Anytime I cover a topic in my notes that I've written about before in the same book (or even previous ones!) or when I pick up where I left off, I reference the previous page(s). That way, I can easily find prior entries by flipping right to them. It can be time-consuming, but I find the act of physically going back and noting down where I've taken notes before forces me to get in the mindset and remember what I've already written. The physical reminder and drawing of the connection between then and now helps connect all of my thoughts coherently.

The final point I want to make is that the note-taking post specifically is not about making a grimoire. It isn't about making a formal reference document to come back to for tried and true spells or confirmed information. It's about testing things, taking down your thoughts, and learning. It isn't a textbook, it's a research log.

Confirmed, solid information you're confident in, proven spells, fleshed out theories and beliefs, and other parts of your actual practice go from the notebook into a grimoire. The grimoire should be organized by topic, definitely, since it's a reference document. Not only that, but I believe a grimoire should be in a binder, as opposed to a bound notebook.

(I have a whole post in the works about turning notes into a nice-looking grimoire; stay tuned for that at some point in the next few weeks!)

Obviously, this method isn't going to work for everyone. No single method is perfect. Hence why I stated my guidelines are extremely opinion-driven. If you prefer to take your notes directly into your grimoire or have a system already that works for you, that's great! Good for you. The purpose of the note-taking post was to help encourage people who are afraid of "ruining" a notebook or taking "bad notes" to give it a go in a structured way.

As with all advice you find on the internet, use your good judgment. If organizing by date doesn't make sense for you, don't do it. Use a binder, use a digital app, whatever you want. Take what resonates, leave what doesn't, and all that.

Thank you for asking this!! It really is a great question about information I didn't want to get into on the original post for length reasons. (:

[friendrat]

I posted 2,995 times in 2022

That's 2,904 more posts than 2021!

169 posts created (6%)

2,826 posts reblogged (94%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@taleweaver-ramblings

@kanerallels

@o-lei-o-lai-o-lord

@lady-merian

@so-prickly-pear

I tagged 2,539 of my posts in 2022

Only 15% of my posts had no tags

#dracula daily - 245 posts

#dracula - 206 posts

#bwahahaha - 166 posts

#miraculous ladybug - 159 posts

#art - 145 posts

#miraculoustalesofladybugandcatnoir - 118 posts

#adrien agreste - 100 posts

#memes - 100 posts

#language warning - 95 posts

#writing - 90 posts

Longest Tag: 138 characters

#my husband wasn't able to join the military because doctors prescribed him a seizure medication to help him lose weight when he was a teen

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

Old theory I never posted here:

So my kids were watching the Magic School Bus. It happened to be the Inside Ralphie episode, and I noticed something a bit odd. Anyone who's watched that show knows that Ms Frizzle always dressed to match her field trip. And at the beginning of the episode, she is dressed just how you would expect for a day that they would be studying how the human body fights infection... except she was dressed that way *before* she got the call that Ralphie was sick! Which means she had to have known in advance that he was sick.

It reminded me of one of the books I read where she goes on vacation to Egypt, and hijacks the tour after the tour guide mysteriously and suddenly contracts laryngitis. She then proceeds to take the entire plane of tourists back in time.

All this makes it look suspiciously like she can make people get sick. And that means that she most likely made Ralphie sick for the purpose of the field trip.

135 notes - Posted November 10, 2022

#4

My husband just pointed out that when referring to Adrian's different personas, we shouldn't call him "civilian Adrian", we should call him "House Chat", and I have never heard anything so brilliant before. Petition to call him House Chat.

198 notes - Posted February 19, 2022

#3

Ok Tumblr, I'm in a debate right now about The Sea Beast.

A bunch of people are saying that it doesn't make sense how the royalty of the kingdom is making money of of the hunting industry, but I thought it was kinda obvious how it worked? I think it's twofold.

First, they are clearing trade routes. That opens up the doors to more foreign trade. Some people are arguing"well that benefits other kingdoms too". Which is true, but doesn't prove that they aren't getting rich from it. 🙄 History people. Open trade routes leads to wealthier kingdoms and better lives for the common people.

Second, I think the next logical assumption is that they are making money off of the sea beast horns. Yes, they tell the hunters to bring them back as proof of their kills, but what really happens to them afterwards? You can't tell me all of them end up in their museum/private collection. Not given the number that the hunters brought back from a single voyage. Also, look at how many real world species have been hunted to extinction over horns, tusks, and pelts. Add that to the time period meaning that they had inferior medical knowledge as well as more superstition (which is also seen in the movie, so I'm not just guessing based on the time period), we have a recipe for those horns to be used for any number of things including medicine and magical totems.

So there we have it. An exclusive resource (we don't hear of any other kingdoms being built up by hunters, although I could be wrong there... but we do know that they have the *best* hunters, which means they still would have the best supply), and clear routes to trade that resource (among other things). That's how the kingdom got rich on the blood of sea beasts. Am I off my rocker? Maybe. I just took the unanswered question in the movie and applied what I know about the real world to it. It made sense to me.

Any other theories? Am I wrong?

216 notes - Posted July 12, 2022

#2

The pep talk I didn't know I needed today

348 notes - Posted September 17, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

All of the modern takes on Dracula really make me wish they would make a mostly true to book adaptation that is a horror comedy, with things like Dracula having sudden costume changes while pretending to be his own staff, trying to knock the crucifix off the wheel in order to steer the ship, and the people of Whitby chasing him around as a dog. Just all the collective hot takes on what's going on with this story that make us, the modern readers, laugh, presented in a glorious cinema quality film.

1,877 notes - Posted August 9, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

[dustedandsocial]

Lorenzo Chiesa: Anxiety. Absence as a Presence, Elsewhere

Jacques Lacan has a detailed theory of anxiety, which spans at least three Seminars and culminates in Seminar X, Anxiety. He deals with phenomenological, structural, and ontological, if not ethical and political, aspects of anxiety. In this paper, I will mostly focus on the phenomenological aspect. What do we experience when we are anxious? This mundane question obviously has direct implications on the clinic of psychoanalysis, in terms of both how the analyst understands phenomena such as depersonalisation and how anxiety is constructively leveraged upon in the psychoanalytic treatment. Lacan claims that “anxiety emerges when something appears at the place of absence”. This is the place that constitutes, in self-consciousness, the subject of demand, and the object demanded as always lacking. Commentators tend to read this in a twofold manner. First, if in anxiety something appears in the place of absence, then anxiety amounts to the absence of absence as something. Second, anxiety would therefore stand for a “catastrophic reaction” that fixes absence and leads to de-subjectivation. I will argue that my stance on this is quite the opposite. First, in anxiety, “absence reveals itself for what it is” qua absence, and therefore cannot be reduced to something resulting from an absence of absence. Rather, what absence is “reveals itself [as a] presence elsewhere”, namely, the presence, elsewhere, of what Lacan calls object a. In anxiety, the subject sees itself elsewhere as an object seeing the subject back. This is for Lacan what Freud called Unheimlich, which is epitomised by the Wolf-Man dream. Second, anxiety is thus not a fixation of absence. It amounts on the contrary, in a still Freudian fashion, to a “’DANGER! signal” and thus a fundamental subjective defence. Absence is instead catastrophically fixed in the so-called passage-to-the-act, as epitomised by Freud’s case of the young homosexual woman, and her attempted suicide.

[goatsgomoo]

No tinfoil hat needed to explain the situation.

But first, on AI as a concept:

Artificial intelligence is when a machine makes decisions and/or performs actions in order to achieve goals.

AI as a field is so much older than the latest boom and broader than what the current big names are doing. There are a few AI developments (such as the chess-playing mechanical automaton El Ajedrecista (1912) and the electro-mechanical Nimatron (1940)) which predate programmable (as opposed to hard-wired) electronic computers. Once we had programmable computers, we got systems like Logic Theorist (1956) and General Problem Solver (1958).

We had ELIZA in the 60s, the rise of Expert Systems in the 60s through the 80s (until they became so commonplace that the name fell out of use), and once the Internet became public and the Web was invented, all sorts of AI systems that leveraged access to large data sets to make decisions, such as Google's search engine and Netflix's recommendation algorithm.

So yes, of course people are going to describe things older than the current boom as AI; that's an accurate description!

Translation algorithm? Nope. AI translation.

This is basically the ultimate example of a piece of software that is incontrovertibly AI! It's not just some lookup table where you find the passage of text you want to translate then grab the translated text in your target language; translation software has to handle text it's never seen before. It needs to "understand" grammar rules of different languages, it needs to "know" vocabulary, and it needs to make decisions on ambiguous text. Whether this is done through a large corpus of rules programmed into the software or through statistical modeling is irrelevant; it's AI either way. And if you think that the rise of machine translation didn't impact a whole lot of jobs, you're dead wrong.

My point here is twofold:

What you are calling "AI" is artificially narrow and doesn't really match with accepted definitions

The current boom didn't come out of nowhere, it's just the latest iterative improvements in a field older than you. So calling things that AI researchers in the 90s and 00s worked on "AI" is perfectly reasonable.

Second, on the explosion in the popularity of the term "AI" to describe software:

(And here's where I stop citing Wikipedia because I'm drawing more on my own observations and personal experience)

Sorry to say, but this trend is pretty much entirely consumer driven. People want the latest and greatest, people want the top of the line, people want things marketed as AI. And most of these people don't know enough to have a solid idea of exactly what functionality or performance they want; they just see "AI" and are impressed. The tech companies slapping the term on their products are mostly just meeting a demand and get rewarded immensely for doing so.

Now, of course, investors in tech companies are also exerting pressure to market themselves as AI or integrate AI into their products to capitalize on this trend. And a lot of companies who had been just quietly creating products with AI and/or ML (whether the AI is in the product or just used as part of its creation) are realizing that being louder about that fact will get them money. Because yeah, a red eye removal tool is absolutely AI, and if you can increase your sales figures by 10% by telling people that, you'd be a fool not to. And like everything else, this trend is older than the current big boom; when I worked at IBM my division got renamed to include the term "Watson" back around 2017-2018 despite nothing changing about the products we were making.

Now, all that leads up to my main point, which is not in fact about nit-picking language use. First, from your post:

my tinfoil hat theory is that they're trying to get the term "AI" to replace the term "software" to make the people who are opposed to the labor-rights-violating, job-stealing, "boss threatens to replace you with it if your wages and benefits prove too expensive" AI seem like backwards luddites who hate technology

Look, this has been going on forever, the "AI" term is irrelevant. The original Luddites were laborers who were seeing their ways of life destroyed by mechanization. The introduction of automation into manufacturing processes also impacted jobs. More recently, grocery stores and fast food restaurants have been replacing cashiers with touchscreens. And every step of the way, there's been a whole lot of ink spilled by people complaining about losing their jobs to more and more advanced tools, and by people telling the folks losing their jobs to shut up and get out of the way of "progress".

Zero jobs are stolen, zero creativity lost, zero labor issues at play, just VFX professionals paid to apply a digital effect.

So why decide that these latest developments is your cutoff for what is and isn't acceptable? Why is digital VFX, eliminating the jobs of people who would hand-paint individual frames of film, acceptable?

I ask because I want to encourage people to think about what exactly they take issue with here. If everything before you started paying attention is normal and fine and isn't a labor issue, but changes to the current situation are obviously serious problems, then you're going to sometimes find yourself on the side of people who've been making things worse for decades because their success is now "normal". And (this part isn't directed at you but more towards the people whose takes you were mentioning) if your opposition to things is based on what buzzwords are being used, that leaves you wide open to being manipulated quite easily into getting angry at something rather innocuous. While in this case that's a pretty minor impact, this is the exact same trap I see people falling into (or setting for others) when calling for online censorship or harassment.

Latest tech pet peeve is the use of the term "AI" to refer to basically anything that does any amount of automation or uses computers in any way

[dangermousie]

CFC 165

Soooo, we got to the part of the narrative where I am terrified to open every new chapter. Good times!

1. I am sorry, Nangong Liu, your wig has been snatched (tm @hamliet) LSZ didn’t just only tell the boss of her evil org about He Yu being with XQC as soon as she got the information, she literally forwarded him the videos. Let me repeat, the woman sent x-rated videos of her own son having sex with someone just so as to back up her tattling. She is a p2rn distributor of videos of her own kid. Let that one sink in for a second as to the kind of violation that is.

2. Bwahahahaha I love evil org boss going “Your kid’s porn tapes are boring, thanks, not my thing.” I laugh so I won’t punch things. The thing that is interesting to me about this exchange is twofold though: (1) Duan is evil but he’s also smart unlike the utterly dumb mother - they want He Yu’s cooperation not forced participation otherwise they’d have taken him long ago. Which is why he told momster to get affectionate with her kid and draw him in; not become a sex video distributor! (2) the reason they want He Yu’s cooperation is because he would be nice to have but is not necessary to them and if he cavils the value of benefits from him is not worth the trouble. He is (relatively) safe in not being that important - they have other means to simulate his blood gu (with obedient water) so they are waiting and seeing with him (in part also to see if his power gets greater and then they would be more interested.) It’s an interesting set-up and turns on its head my theory of org forcing He Yu in by threatening XQC. Unless He Yu’s powers get stronger, they simply don’t care enough.

3. Fffffff...of course evil org knew about He Yu x XQC already. I am so grossed out. But also, the fact that Duan says XQC is not allowed to be killed - tormented yes, killed no - freaks me the hell out - because that might mean org knows he’s the first emperor (or at least connected to him) and !!!! But on second thought, it doesn’t feel like that either - it feels like a more emotional connection perhaps. Is he Chen Man’s older brother? Some other thing? I should stop guessing, Meatbun always shocks me anyway. But also - does this mean Duan knows XQC is dying? He seems to know a lot of stuff. And if so, does he plan to do something about it?

4. But Duan tells momster she can hurt XQC if she wants just not kill. I hate them ALL!

5. Oh God, Anthony is all “let’s watch the p@rn again, I would have thought XQC would be the top” and seriously we knew Anthony was sent by evil org to be the doctor but the sheer level of violation of everyone in HY’s life who is supposed to be closest/he is supposed to be most vulnerable with etc being like that! This is the level of “everyone is out to get me” but true. (Yes, it’s a violation of XQC too, of course, but at least it’s not gleefully done by people who are supposed to be closest to him but (to him) randoms.)

6. Also, Anthony was the one who wanted XQC and HY die in the reservoir?!?!?

7. Why is HY’s mother so stupid? She seems to have the same understanding of human relationships and emotions as a malfunctioning robot. Her genius plan:”break XQC and HY up, then HY will turn to me.” UMMMMM - I am not talking about cruelty (she wants to remove his supports so as to become his support and manipulate him) because it’s like discussing Sartre with a dog -pointless as far as she is concerned. But how does one lead to the other? Even if HY was single, he’s 20, that’s not the age for someone to get closer to his mom after a breakup. Like - what?!

8. XQC secretly hoping to see HY again but then feeling sad because HY is outside in the rain with no umbrella :( And he feels something and starts typing come and get an umbrella but stops before he hits send and he sees HY just stand there stupidly in the rain waiting because he sees the sign that XQC is typing and this honestly guts me so much. And then he finally walks away with face wet from rain or tears and XQC can’t sleep all night. GRRRRRRRR I can’t!

9. Chen Man (who is always so boring to me omg) is about to confess but he went to park the car and XQC walks to his room to find drunk HY outside and this is gonna be fun!

That was a hell of a chapter!

[barbitone]

Rules: List the first lines of your last 20 stories (if you have less than 20, just list them all!). See if there are any patterns. Choose your favorite opening line. Then tag 10 of your favorite authors!

I was tagged by no one but I saw @displayheartcode​ doing it and it seemed neat :>

Tagging: open to anyone!

Ancel’s entire life had been leading up to this. (The Best Contract at Court)

Ancel jerked awake to the sound of shuffling footsteps and laughter, books slamming closed. (Higher Education)

Hubert’s role in his Lady’s Empire is twofold- he is the silent watcher in the shadows and the poisoned knife in the dark. (Find a Little Company)

“My lord, may I speak plainly?” Parsins asked from the driver’s seat of the town car. (Putting on a Show)

Ancel felt sick to his stomach as he stared past Berenger at the ornate cabinet behind him, trying to will back the hot impotent tears stinging at his eyes.  (The Road Not Taken)

Jean tried to think positively as he and the others were taken from Vere. (A Road of Our Own)

The messenger was wild-eyed and red-faced as he burst into the throne room, panting for breath as he ran forward and dropped to his knees before King Zarkon’s throne. (Running in the Night)

The cool night air on the patio was a relief after the bustle of the party inside. (A Pleasant Diversion)

“Fuck him, Red!” someone cries out from the audience and Ancel makes a point of looking up and grinning, pushing his sweaty hair out of his eyes. (One of a Kind)

The soldiers were drinking because the battle was over. (Forget-Me-Not)

“I’m going to fuck Berenger,” Ancel announced, setting his empty shot glass down on the bar with a decisive clink. (Giselle)

The first time is an accident. (Coping Mechanism)

Everything was mostly going to plan, right up until the Regent ordered his pet to be executed and his severed head to be sent to Prince Laurent. (The Great Escape) 

Ancel slipped his hands into the pockets of his tweed jacket as he leaned a little closer to the glass case containing the lavish diamond tiara. (Catch and Release)

“It’s dangerous for you to stay with me,” Berenger had said. (If He Wins)

After nearly a year of Ancel's careful maneuvering, the sixth annual Council retreat was scheduled to take place in Varenne. (Pet Games- Turnabout)

Varenne was an important province- in theory. (Sunset, Sunrise)

In retrospect Ancel couldn’t remember what it was that had sent him to storming out of the stables in a rage, still holding his riding crop in a tight grip. (Pet Games, Rope)

Eight months into chasing the jewel thief and forger they’d nicknamed Ruby, Berenger had finally managed to track him down not only to his hotel, but to his hotel room. (Catch Me If You Can)

“Our brother is dead,” Em said, her picture hazy over the viewscreen. (Original Work)

Not sure what I learned from this! Other than maybe my faves are the ones that just get right to it and start with dialogue. It’s a tie between 11 and 20 for me, although I’m also a particular fan of the beginning of Young, But For A Season- 

The first time Ancel found a gray hair he nearly screamed.

[prernakalbag]

The Paradox of Death

Losing a close family member can leave you grieving for months, if not years. But losing them during a pandemic can be even more horrifying and painful. It’s been more than 9 months since I lost the person closest to me, and there are days when I still find it difficult to process the loss.

The trauma that people like me experience is twofold: apart from the loss, there is a also a general atmosphere of death that we find ourselves in. We are not only confronted by grief but by our own mortality. And the idea that we might at some point in time gradually fade away into the terrible oblivion of nothingness is a frightening prospect. So how do we cope with and accept the inevitable- the fact that one day, we might just not exist?

There were a few things that I did to cope with my loss: I went on a solo trip for 2 weeks, I began to paint frantically (so much so, that I’m on my way to finally creating a decent body of work), and I watched TV shows and films that tackle the concept of dying. The Good Place really helped me put things in perspective, mostly because of its humour and its rather sensitive portrayal of mortality. I also loved the way the show made philosophy seem so accessible, even perhaps to those who may not regularly engage with critical theory and philosophical concepts, like I do. After starting to watch the show, I began to read Death by Todd May: May was a philosophical advisor to The Good Place and even made an appearance in the final episode of the show. According to May (as well as the show), our lives are fashioned and shaped by the inevitability of death. This idea might be a little overwhelming initially, but can also be a major source of relief. We live our lives meaningfully only when we are constantly aware of our own mortality, and being perpetually conscious of the limitedness of Time enables us to experience life more fully. In The Good Place, when the 4 protagonists finally enter the real “Good Place” in the fourth season, they realize that its inhabitants have turned into what they term “happiness zombies”, because the prospect of eternal happiness can only lead to an eternity of boredom. And that’s such a relief: we may or may not experience an afterlife, and even if we did, it may not be to our liking. The point is, whether we do believe in an idea of a heaven or a hell, we must live our lives as mortals, with an end in sight, so as to prevent the inescapable inertia that an eternity of happiness presents.

How many times have we delayed checking everything off our to-do list, or visiting places that we wish to visit, or telling the people in our lives how much they mean to us simply because we took time for granted? And perhaps that’s why, the idea of an eternal end might not be such a bad thing: it might just be what will help us live our lives well.

[woogurl]

I've been looking over your blog and you have motivated me to do my own sleuthing! Way too much to put into an ask but a couple of theories I'm working on are: san a little crush on Yeosang early on, but still thought Woo was hot (when he watched Woo dance while they were lunching between millennium studios dance lessons). (Quick note: I think they find each other very hot dancing and it may go...elsewhere...). I also theorise a reason why Woo likes having a phone to monitor vlives is twofold and he likes knowing what is being said but that he can observe San without getting caught. I've noticed he doesn't glance when he has it but know exactly what San is doing and when he doesn't have one he tends to sneaky glance a lot more. I also think Woo likes to be physically manhandled and that have contributed to San bulking up as well. They do love to please each other! Finally, I noticed Woo hasn't been as self-conscious recently even though he has still been aware of the cameras... my conclusion to this one is that KQ is pushing other ships hard. They know who we ship and giving us these takes off the heat from Woo and San. You want to hide a relationship best place is to hide them in plain sight- can't see the wood for the trees.

Not Woo and San but I also believe Yunho is gay and regularly checks out the members. Also he is the most dominant in the group and definitely has a proper sadistic streak. He likes seeing people visibly pissed and or in pain. Helping Woo tease San and also actually biting Woo in the vlive. I also think he would have hit on Woo if San wasn't around. Just for funseys.

OMG. how can u say stuff so brave yet so controversial. RNOFNWS. I LOVE THIS and encourage all of my followers to do their own thing and theorize themselves. it’s so interesting to see different perspectives. i don’t agree with all of these points but i do agree with some of them. i’m not sure if san ever had a crush on yeosang because i haven’t really watched a lot of their ship content. i don’t think so because the xmas reveal vlive and that moment on tour where woo had to pick his bestfriend shows that san had more interest in woo still. unless we’re talking earlier but. after watching more of the earlier predebut content and seeing how much their dynamics change leads me to believe san was possibly in a relationship predebut/early debut. and i my assumption is that it wasn’t an ateez member.

this is probably the point where i think they were only good friends. woosan existed at this time, and it was clear they were close because of the letter woo wrote san during that old predebut/early debut vlive. also the moments during treasure film. but san didn’t seem THAT interested in woo or as interested as he is now. i think he might’ve been fascinated with woo tho. i also do think woo likes to sneakily glance. lol. i also think woo enjoys being manhandled and spanked. i’m pretty sure san bulked up because of his insecurities with his body, but i wouldn’t be surprise if san had a kink for appearing bigger than his significant other.

kq def knows, and i’m sure they intervene when the time calls for it, but the boys are pretty conscious of the camera esp woo. yunho confuses me. lol. i still think he’s bi, but i do think he’d lowkey be a dom. loool. he’s someone who def try to rile up the other party for fun. xD 

[k3agn]

We never really saw what Mages did in Homestuck.

Many theorists (almost all of them actually) pair Mages with Seers because of either the “prophetic insight” thing or the “being able to hear their exile more clearly than others” thing. Naturally, neither are full proof, and everyone knows seems to know this but this unconfirmed pairing is never questioned. Why?

I apologize in advance for the long post.

I know with a fair amount of certainty most if not all of my highly contradictory theories have been wrong over the years, but the problem with misinformation and misunderstanding is that it stands in the way of progress. So naturally, I’m going to shatter the one thing the classpect theorist community treat as absolute and hope for the best.

I wanna start with Mituna, the Heir of Doom. Bet no one saw that coming. In Openbound, Aranea had this to say about him:

“The Heir of Doom was once a powerful psionic. He was gifted with vision twofold and had strong prophetic insights wherever a 8leak future was concerned. He had much to say when it came to warning us a8out the path of doom and destruction we were all headed for, 8ut no one took him very seriously.”

Mituna wasn’t a mage or a seer, yet he had a lot of prophetic insights due to his aspect: Doom. Now let’s compare this to what Sollux had to say:

TA: but before ii diie, iim goiing two go bliind liike you.

TA: iit ha2 two happen liike that.

TA: iim not 2ure why, but ii thiink iit2 liike...

TA: fulfiilliing 2ome requiirement for a true prophet of doom.

TA: iin order for the vii2iion2 two be riight, that ha2 two happen, and the uniiver2e wiill make 2ure iit wiill.

Again, the association with Doom. Also while people have linked Seers thematically to prophets, in the comic itself, prophets/prophetic insights never tie into Seers directly, save for Terezi’s mention of Alternia’s BL1ND PROPH3TS. Seers are related to visions (Rose, Kankri), but it is equally linked to Skaia’s clouds. Terezi is also the only one of the Seers to have lost a sense; both mages have, as has Latula (her sense of smell).

But what has been said of Meulin, or other mage?

“The Mage of Heart as you know is an ardent disciple of the romantic sciences. She has a well earned reputation as a miracle worker when it comes to match making.”

To me at least, this seems to put a focus on learning for mages, but it could just be a Meulin thing. Karkat similarly considered himself an expert on romance, so it’s hard to say. But I don’t see any real connections to Seers here; there’s no mention of Meulin having visions or anything really.

This leads me to believe that the visions could be more tied to aspects (light, doom), or other factors entirely (Skaia’s clouds, vision twofold, Vantas’ blood mutation, etc.). Primarily though, I would argue that it falls most in line with 3 things: Seers, Skaia’s Clouds, and the Doom aspect. It’s not a Mage thing though, and it’s not a Mage/Seer thing because there are factors and characters with classes that aren’t Mage or Seer that share them. The tie in with the Captors is their vision twofold, but visions are more strongly linked with almost every instance of Rose, the Sufferer, Prospit Dreamers with the clouds of Skaia.

In terms of being able to hear exiles more clearly, that’s only been confirmed with Seers. John took note of his exile’s voice pretty early on too, but couldn’t explain it. Sollux didn’t really know what it was either, but he recognized another unwelcomed voice in his head and flipped. That doesn’t make it a solid factor in my book, if anything it’s weaker than the “losing a sense” thing.

To conclude my ramblings, let me say that I’m not outright saying that Mages and Seers aren’t paired, just that the popular, “obvious” reasonings everyone seems to use are not concrete. It could just as easily be Witches/Seers, Witches/Mages, Mages/Sylphs, etc. The only concrete ways to identify class pairings are a) we’re explicitly told they are (thief/rogue, prince/bard, probably lord/muse, but mostly the master classes are just presumed to be paired). Challenging popular ideas is the only way to move forward

Much love, homestucks <>

[homosexuhauls]

I'm not reblogging your answer on my post because I don't want to give you a platform, but the reason I treat it as a "hierarchy" is twofold: People aren't being slaughtered systemically on the basis of sex or gender, while they are on the basis of race, and we should talk about that, and because that's what radfems do. The entire core ideology is that misogyny is the highest form of oppression. And please, don't "black on black crime" me, you sound like a white supremacist.

Are you a minor? If you are I'm not comfortable discussing things with you further because I actually think you're a fucking racist (and a misogynist, but you don't care about that) and I don't want to say anything rude to a child who has all the chances in the world to improve.

Responding to arguments - not just radfem arguments, but any argument - takes comprehension and it takes empathy. Comprehension requires an intellectual understanding and empathy requires an emotional understanding of what you're responding to. At this point you have neither, which doesn't matter in a tumblr argument about shipping or ace discourse. But when you wade into discussions above your comprehension or empathy level, it leads to you doing very embarrassing things like accusing mixed race women of white supremacy. Tell me, which of your experiences with white supremacy allow you to treat it so lightly as a rhetorical device?

Read radfem theory if you want to find real criticisms of it (there are many!!). Google "femicide" so you don't ever make yourself look like such a fucking fool again. Look up murder rates of women, especially black women (black women from North America, but also from Europe, from Africa, from South America and elsewhere) and read about who's actually killing them and why this violence is committed. I don't expect you to ever agree with me, but I expect you to come away with a fuller understanding of the lives and experiences of the women you're trying to speak for.

[theharellan]

I played Here Lies the Abyss the other week and I wanted to write something about Solas’ feelings regarding the Wardens, and how I approach it in roleplay. When I first played the game they were probably the place where my opinions diverged most from his, DA:O was my first game and my feelings about the Wardens were overall positive and uncritical. Replaying the series thinking about and reexamining their actions throughout made me much more sympathetic to his perspective, even though I still believe allying with them is better for the Inquisition and especially the Order itself.

The root of Solas’ anger seems to involve information we’re not privy to. He believes that using demons to destroy the slumbering Archdemons may lead to more trouble, which is something most companions seem to be in agreement on even without the extra context of Erimond’s deception. But there’s a little more to it than that. Solas doesn’t seem to think Archdemons are the root of the Blight, nor that destroying them will solve the problem. Solas isn’t the first person with this opinion, off the top of my head there is a dwarf in Origins (I believe it’s a Legionnaire, although it may also be from a codex) who believes that when the last Archdemon is destroyed the darkspawn will just cover the land in Blight and dwarves in general write about how humans misunderstand the Darkspawn threat. But so far as Solas is concerned these banters I think allude to this most clearly:

Solas: The Wardens see themselves as the world's defense against the Blight, do they not? Blackwall: Yes... why do you sound so skeptical? Doesn't everyone know this? Solas: When an Archdemon rises, they slay it. What will they do when all the Archdemons are slain? Blackwall: Retire? Solas: Without Archdemons, there can be no Blights. Is that the reasoning? Blackwall: Right. Where are you going with this? Solas: Nowhere. I hope they are correct.

And in this Varric banter:

Solas: The Grey Wardens allow elves and dwarves into their ranks? Varric: Qunari too I imagine. They don't care about titles or blood, just stopping the Blight. Solas: A pity they do it so badly then. (Post-Revelations with Blackwall in the party) Blackwall: Would you care to repeat that? Solas: I would be happy to argue the point with an actual Grey Warden. Solas: Argue if you like, your fight against the darkspawn is noble, but what progress have you made? (Otherwise) Varric: Give them some credit, it's not like you can study the Blight safely. I may not like everything they've done, but without the wardens, we'd all be blighted by now. Solas: They've bought us some time, I will grant them that.

Now, I could get into theories about the Blight, the connections to Andruil, the connections to Ghilan’nain, hints that Solas’ apocalypse is in part to subvert another, greater apocalypse potentially at the hands of the Blight rather than a simple return to a pre-Veil world. But a) that would take me a while to get into and b) for the purposes of rp I try to keep away from leaning on theories that I’m not super committed to, and for the moment I’m content with Solas’ knowledge of the Blight’s origins remaining a nebulous thing that hangs over all his feelings about the Wardens and the Blight, heaping upon what I talk about in this post.

Solas is highly critical of orders, believing that even when begun with noble purpose they inevitably fall from them or that the purpose is somehow corrupted. When it concerns Wardens he will concede on occasion that they possess admirable qualities, such as during Jana’s recruitment, but ultimately feels that their purpose is so singular that it blinds them to a larger picture. You can see this in bits and pieces throughout the series, barely lifting a hand to stop a qunari invasion of Kirkwall to instead turn their attention to some future threat, unleashing Corypheus in hopes of being able to control the Blight, but it’s most on display during Here Lies the Abyss.

There is an insidious nature to the Warden’s recruitment process that doesn’t sit right with Solas, and while he isn’t privy to all the information we are as players of Origins, even going off what he does know he doesn’t like what he sees. As Fen’Harel, recruitment was a voluntary process and not necessary to earn the revolution’s protection: “Rest, knowing the Dread Wolf guards you and his people guard this valley...  He leads only those who would help willingly. Let none be beholden but by choice.” (x) Freedom is important to him during the recruitment process, and something that’s underrepresented in the Wardens. Even those who choose to be Wardens do not do so with a full understanding of what a Warden is and the consequences of recruitment, and many more are forcibly recruited criminals. As I said, Solas doesn’t necessarily know all the details of what Wardens are nor what the process of becoming one entails, so it’s this latter detail (one which is public knowledge) that he takes issue with. We see it in Origins with Duncan taking advantage of HoF’s precarious position to earn another recruit, potentially exploiting their status as a marginalised class/race/etc. It runs counter to how Solas believes just organisations should operate.

The demon army. A lot of attention in-game is paid to the horror of Wardens killing their own men and turning the mages into thralls, and rightfully so, that is indeed terrible. From Solas’ perspective the crime is twofold. It seems unlikely that the spirits summoned by Erimond and the Wardens were recruits, and even if some were their free will was also lost in the process. Replay Here Lies the Abyss keeping in mind that spirits are people and it’s a lot easier to understand Solas’ sigh if you decide to ally with them. For my Solas’ part, there is a significant part of him that wonders if the Inquisitor would make the same choice to forgive were it human civilians who were to act as cannon fodder for the Darkspawn rather than spirits.

The Wardens avoiding politics isn’t something that sits well with my Solas specifically. By making that choice, they are in essence choosing to uphold Thedas as it currently exists, and coincidentally also allowing recruitment for poor elves or imprisoned mages seem like a way out of their helpless situations. While the Wardens are by no means to blame for the Chantry or the Circle, by not taking a stance as an order they do unofficially stand beside them.

Despite all of this, however, he’s much more capable of respecting individual Wardens than he is, say, individual Templars (although he speaks highly of Ser Barris, indicating that even then it’s a system vs individual). A Warden’s purpose isn’t to act as a jailer to innocent mages, to children. Wardens who diverge from this single-minded path, who help innocents, who look for ways to help solve the Blight in ways more nuanced than throwing bodies at it, he can easily respect despite his issues with their order. Blackwall is one such Warden, or he is so far as Solas is aware. The Hero of Ferelden is potentially another, given that he has travelled Ferelden where there may be no shortage of tales where the Warden didn’t act as a neutral party, but tried to help people in a similar manner to the Inquisitor. His issues with the Wardens as an order doesn’t necessarily translate to issues with Wardens as people.

[friendrat]

Ok Tumblr, I'm in a debate right now about The Sea Beast.

A bunch of people are saying that it doesn't make sense how the royalty of the kingdom is making money of of the hunting industry, but I thought it was kinda obvious how it worked? I think it's twofold.

First, they are clearing trade routes. That opens up the doors to more foreign trade. Some people are arguing"well that benefits other kingdoms too". Which is true, but doesn't prove that they aren't getting rich from it. 🙄 History people. Open trade routes leads to wealthier kingdoms and better lives for the common people.

Second, I think the next logical assumption is that they are making money off of the sea beast horns. Yes, they tell the hunters to bring them back as proof of their kills, but what really happens to them afterwards? You can't tell me all of them end up in their museum/private collection. Not given the number that the hunters brought back from a single voyage. Also, look at how many real world species have been hunted to extinction over horns, tusks, and pelts. Add that to the time period meaning that they had inferior medical knowledge as well as more superstition (which is also seen in the movie, so I'm not just guessing based on the time period), we have a recipe for those horns to be used for any number of things including medicine and magical totems.

So there we have it. An exclusive resource (we don't hear of any other kingdoms being built up by hunters, although I could be wrong there... but we do know that they have the *best* hunters, which means they still would have the best supply), and clear routes to trade that resource (among other things). That's how the kingdom got rich on the blood of sea beasts. Am I off my rocker? Maybe. I just took the unanswered question in the movie and applied what I know about the real world to it. It made sense to me.

Any other theories? Am I wrong?