#no matter if I agree with the opinion or not

[the-cats-noodles]

Everytime I see this, everytime, someone brings up marriage as an exception and I can't help but think, really?

I get it, promises are important (to death do us part, which is in and of itself an unrealistic standard but whatever i dont have time to talk abt that) but I feel like people forget that marriage for love is relatively recent? The point of marriage being to join households and pass on property is much older (and the origin of the whole "only death can make us separate" bc property and inheritance) like, the reason people stayed together was bc of duty not love and that was a very different environment than the one now (which is good) but it still means we're talking about a standard that is unrealistic in our current environment (not to mention the insane amount of murder over not being able to get divorced in the past, like it's a very good thing we can end marriages now)

There's nothing wrong with marrying someone and wanting to stay with them forever (we chose to do this for love and that was good actually), but can we stop pretending this idea is universal?

Making a promise is all well and good, but people change and their promises do too.

Like, yes you keep growing as you get older and yes you might grow closer with your partner (and that's perfectly normal and okay) BUT you might also grow apart and that is ALSO PERFECTLY OKAY

Saying that marriage is something to exclude from the idea of decentering permanence is kinda ignoring all the people who really shouldn't be staying together but "have" to (for the kids, reputation, etc) and anybody involved definitely feels that dynamic shift...

Just, yeah "keep your promises" but also know that breaking them is a part of life and its much better for both parties if you break a promise instead of wither away trying to uphold it for some perceived sense of duty or obligation to people whose opinions literally DO NOT matter

(If you wanna be with one person forever? great! If they don't agree bc they don't love you anymore? Oh well, tough luck, I guarantee you'll be better off letting them go then forcing them to stay in a legal contract, which is what marriage becomes when you don't feel love for the other party anymore)

Also I get most people don't want to force someone to stay in a situation that makes them miserable, at least I really hope they don't, but when (as a society) we place more importance on the whole 'till death do us part' bit and less on the 'I love you and want to show it' (or even say the only way to show it is to hold onto that person forever) then it kinda forces people into this idea of "having" to stay

And look, counseling is great, it can work wonders, but it is NOT a miracle worker. It can't fix everything and it doesn't have to bc A LOT of marriages aren't broken they're just fizzling out

Am I making any sense? Who knows, but I was raised in a community where ending a marriage or relationship was worse than cheating bc "marriages are work"

They are, but you also retire from work when it becomes a strain and you can't do it anymore. You can quit a job if it doesn't fit. I'm not saying marriage is a job, but I am saying that if we expect marriage to involve work we can expect it to reach the point where people just DONT WANT TO DO THAT ANYMORE and that's okay

I'm begging: please stop insisting marriage is different from other relationships in this regard bc it isn't. It's sweet and a wonderful experience but it's still just a love between two people and we can't expect that to be magically enough to stop the natural progression all relationships go through.

You lose friends over time but some stay around. You lose family over time (like, no contact in this case not necessarily through death) but some stay around. You lose lovers and partners over time but some stay around. And that's okay, u just don't see how the last one is somehow expected to have more weight.

(Which I believe was op's point? That they're all temporary and that's a good thing actually)

Like everything is temporary, it's just sometimes that temporary lines up with our lives bc we ourselves are temporary beings, and it's okay if it does and it's okay if it doesn't.

I think a lot about how we as a culture have turned “forever” into the only acceptable definition of success.

Like… if you open a coffee shop and run it for a while and it makes you happy but then stuff gets too expensive and stressful and you want to do something else so you close it, it’s a “failed” business. If you write a book or two, then decide that you don’t actually want to keep doing that, you’re a “failed” writer. If you marry someone, and that marriage is good for a while, and then stops working and you get divorced, it’s a “failed” marriage.

The only acceptable “win condition” is “you keep doing that thing forever”. A friendship that lasts for a few years but then its time is done and you move on is considered less valuable or not a “real” friendship. A hobby that you do for a while and then are done with is a “phase” - or, alternatively, a “pity” that you don’t do that thing any more. A fandom is “dying” because people have had a lot of fun with it but are now moving on to other things.

I just think that something can be good, and also end, and that thing was still good. And it’s okay to be sad that it ended, too. But the idea that anything that ends is automatically less than this hypothetical eternal state of success… I don’t think that’s doing us any good at all.

[lastofthewardens]

i know i should respect other people’s opinions but

probably (but unconfirmed) spoilers for born again below

i get so tired of hearing some of these stupid arguments about what this new show is doing to foggy.

“it’s never happened before, that makes it interesting!”

“where are the stakes in a fake death? if he dies he should stay dead.”

“they had to build stakes!”

“it’ll be interesting for matt’s character.”

“he died in the comics so it’s fine!”

like none of these people make any sense to me. just because it’s something ‘new’ doesn’t make it good. foggy being dead, EVER but especially in episode one, isn’t a good thing for the show. none of the other characters are or should be interchangeable with foggy nelson. by having him immediately gone, the show loses a dynamic it can never replicate, the show loses a bunch of stories they could’ve adapted, matt loses a relationship that can’t be filled by any of the other characters, one that makes the daredevil world much richer by being there. the “who cares if they kill foggy as long as the story is good” people drive me fucking crazy man. i’d never agree with that anyway because almost any daredevil story would be objectively worse without him but they’re also not thinking long term at all. this decision already sucks, but long term, this decision sucks even more.

and the stakes stuff is like.. i’m pretty sure most of the people who fought for this show to come back did not want it like this. why should foggy nelson, the most important side character in daredevil history, die on the altar of building stakes anyway? are they such horrible writers that the only way to build stakes is killing a main character? i even saw one of these ‘stakes’ people saying that the original show could’ve killed him too, they thought he was going to die multiple times in season 3 apparently, and it’s like … okay??? so you’re admitting the original show created stakes without killing off either foggy or karen? wow it’s almost like good writers can create stakes without losing lore important characters! i don’t believe the original show would’ve killed foggy ever. but also despite what has been said, this show isn’t even one that needed to come back with a big death to get people talking. this show would’ve been wildly successful just by existing off the original show’s reputation.

and then the whole thing about dying in the comics. these people definitely haven’t picked up a comic book in their life lol. they’re always referring to zd*rsky, and they always dishonestly leave out the fact that it was obviously not going to stick and it didn’t. like really? yeah foggy was totally going to be left in hell, for sure. not to mention that by the time you find out he died this gets resolved by him being saved from hell by matt literally i think five issues later??? in wildly dramatic fashion. so foggy ‘dying in the comics’ is just a completely dishonest framing of events. because it’s like yes but also basically no.

also like.. sure it might be interesting to see a matt who thinks foggy is dead. you can do that without ACTUAL DEATH???? the idea that it has to be real to be interesting is stupid. brubaker did this super well without permanent loss. i don’t know why we need it to be worse than that for it to be interesting.

idk maybe i’m crazy, but i’m so tired of these types of comments. matt is my favorite character, it’s his show, but he isn’t the only character that matters, and matt as a character needs foggy anyway. not any other character in his place. foggy nelson.

whatever. people watching this show seem to care way too much about the wrong things.

[undead-moth]

I'm an English Composition teacher at a university, and I completely prohibit the use of generative AI/LLMs in my class. I'm adamantly opposed to their use, so don't get me wrong when I say that this study is bunk science and should not be taken seriously.

Methodology

The study relies on self-reporting. All of their data is based on surveys done by participants, who were asked to record when they perceived themselves to be critically thinking. Even setting aside that any of the participants could have lied, how objectively can they assess themselves? Worse yet, what does their perception prove? It's not only unreliable, it also doesn't prove anything.

2. Meaningless units of measurement

"Critical thinking" is not, and can't be, a factually defined concept. Whether or not someone is critically thinking, or capable of critically thinking, is essentially a matter of generally agreed-upon opinion.

As you can see here, they are still using the word "perceived" because there is no other option. It is impossible to quantify someone's critical thinking.

Quality is also a matter of perception.

They even admit in their limitations section that this caused problems while surveying participants and may have contaminated their data. Some of their participants didn't understand that just because they were able to do something easily, or quickly, does not mean they were able to do so because they were critically thinking with ease, which goes back to my first point. I doubt this is the only example of participant misunderstandings. This is, frankly, beyond a limitation. Even if everything else about this study was airtight, this would make their results meaningless anyway. If your participants have a different understanding of what critical thinking is, or what it means to critically think than you do, and they are providing your data, you can't meaningfully conclude anything from the data.

3. Recruitment

The way they selected participants was by recruiting people who regularly use generative AI/LLMs. Not only does this mean that there's no control, but we also don't know anything else about these participants that may be affecting their preexisting critical thinking skills. This contributes to there being no legitimate way of speculating if generative AI/LLMs is influencing how much or how little they're using critical thinking when they use generative AI/LLMs and when they're not.

4. This study proves nothing, but more importantly, this study wasn't even on what they are claiming it was on.

The highlighted portion here is quoted by the 404 Media article above, and it is taken out of context. In the introduction, they explain that an "overreliance" on any form of automation has historically been theorized to have the potential to lead to "atrophy."

First of all, even if this is true, this study didn't follow these participants over time, nor were they required to use generative AI/LLMs exclusively for every daily situation that might require critical thinking, which would be the only way to ensure "overreliance" and the only way to determine if "overreliance" led to "atrophy."

They are hypothesizing that using generative AI/LLMs could potentially "atrophy" critical thinking skills in the event someone "overrelies" on it.

They even compare "overreliance" on generative AI/LLMs to writing, printing, calculators, and the internet - none of which have been proven to "atrophy" critical thinking skills and given that the alternative to generative AI/LLMs is literally writing, which they implicitly argue doesn't atrophy critical thinking skills, I think it's fair to say their hypothesizing here isn't objective.

Plus:

"Overreliance" has the same issue "critical thinking" has. It's a matter of generally agreed-upon opinion. How do you measure overreliance? What constitutes overreliance? Based on the definition above, isn't it possible for people to accept incorrect recommendations or make errors of commission while not "overrelying"? If so - and it is so - how can you ever know if "overreliance" is truly at fault, or even at play?

This also doesn't account for the fact that many other daily situations require critical thinking skills, and many other daily situations don't require critical thinking skills. Even if someone became "overreliant" on generative AI/LLMs, that would not mean they aren't critically thinking regularly in other daily situations, including daily situations that require the exact same critical thinking skills generative AI/LLMs are hypothetically enabling people not to use. If someone uses generative AI/LLMs regularly, does that stop them from reading in their free time? No, obviously not. So...couldn't that mean that even if someone "overrelied" on generative AI/LLMs, that they could still prevent "atrophy" elsewhere in their life? There's also the issue that even if generative AI/LLMs enables users not to critically think, that really doesn't in any way prove that will lead to "atrophy." I would argue that folding laundry doesn't require critical thought, and most people fold laundry regularly - yet it has never led to "atrophy." Doing something that doesn't require critical thinking regularly doesn't by default lead to an inability to critically think, especially if someone is critically thinking in other areas of life - which, most people, whether it seems like it or not, are, and every day.

And this is important to stress entirely because they are arguing that only by becoming "overreliant" on generative AI/LLMs could critical thinking skills "atrophy." They are not, even hypothetically, arguing that just using generative AI/LLMs itself "atrophies" critical thinking skills, which makes Emanuel Maiberg's (author of this 404 Media article) choice in title outright negligent misinformation.

There is no current evidence that using generative AI/LLMs "atrophies" critical thinking. There is some - unprovable - evidence - based on self-reported surveys - that generative AI/LLMs might - because confounding variables are not accounted for - enable someone to do work that typically requires critical thinking without having to critically think - no different than a calculator.

I am not even remotely of the opinion that generative AI/LLM use is comparable to the calculator, but that does not change the fact that all this study proved is that generative AI/LLMs might not, in all instances, require users to critically think, and that does not prove anything.

Here they pretty much admit that it is entirely hypothetical that using generative AI/LLMs could lead to "atrophy." They argue that anyone who doesn't exercise their critical thinking skills regularly can lose them. (This, by the way, we already knew.) They reason that it's possible someone who "overrelies" on using generative AI/LLMs might not be exercising their critical thinking skills regularly, and therefore it could enable the "atrophying" of their critical thinking skills.

This reasoning relies on ignoring confounding variables, which makes it unsound.

Additionally, even if what they are hypothesizing could possibly happen, it would not mean there is anything innately about generative AI/LLMs that causes critical thinking "atrophy." It would only mean that someone who never exercises their critical thinking skills loses them, which we already knew, and was true long before generative AI/LLMs could arguably help enable - not cause - enable people to lose critical thinking skills.

I'll end this firstly by saying that those of us, myself included, who have an ethical objection, and a practical objection to generative AI/LLMs, (I personally still believe that generative AI/LLMs make it so that someone who hasn't yet developed certain critical thinking skills can avoid ever having to develop them, which is I suppose arguably an adjacent line of thinking to this study) firstly need to keep an eye out for their own confirmation bias - I know how tantalizing the title of that 404 Media article is. I know when we see a title like that, we feel very vindicated in our stance - but we have to be vigilant. We have rational and justified objections to generative AI/LLMs that I believe will in time be scientifically and/or factually reported - but this study isn't one, and many won't be. We can't fall prey to misinformation or anti-scientific thought just because it says what we want to hear.

Secondly, I would encourage everyone whose first thought when they read that title was vindication to consider that the people who conducted this study, consciously or unconsciously, may have an ulterior motive for arguing that generative AI/LLMs cause critical thinking "atrophy." Science is never conducted, nor accepted, in a social vacuum, and I would honestly bet that virtually all studies aiming to prove, or worse, claiming to prove - as this one does - that critical thinking "atrophy" exists, are trying to create a scientifically-supported case for "degeneracy," meant to justify eugenics. This is also something we need to be vigilant about.

One of the common mistakes I see for people relying on "AI" (LLMs and image generators) is that they think the AI they're interacting with is capable of thought and reason. It's not. This is why using AI to write essays or answer questions is a really bad idea because it's not doing so in any meaningful or thoughtful way. All it's doing is producing the statistically most likely expected output to the input.

This is why you can ask ChatGPT "is mayonnaise a palindrome?" and it will respond "No it's not." but then you ask "Are you sure? I think it is" and it will respond "Actually it is! Mayonnaise is spelled the same backward as it is forward"

All it's doing is trying to sound like it's providing a correct answer. It doesn't actually know what a palindrome is even if it has a function capable of checking for palindromes (it doesn't). It's not "Artificial Intelligence" by any meaning of the term, it's just called AI because that's a discipline of programming. It doesn't inherently mean it has intelligence.

So if you use an AI and expect it to make something that's been made with careful thought or consideration, you're gonna get fucked over. It's not even a quality issue. It just can't consistently produce things of value because there's no understanding there. It doesn't "know" because it can't "know".

[maul-of-shame]

Just popping up to give my two cents on everything going on- [TROP Edition]

The TROP fandom is vast, passionate, and filled with people who care deeply about Tolkien’s world. Whether we’re here for the lore, the characters, the worldbuilding, or simply the joy of engaging with a new interpretation of Middle-earth, we all share one thing: love for this universe.

And yet, for weeks and even months now, it’s become increasingly clear that some corners of this fandom have been struggling under the weight of harassment, dogpiling, and outright cruelty—all over fictional characters and differing interpretations.

I want to take a moment to say this clearly: No matter where you stand on ships, theories, headcanons, or canon interpretations, harassment is never okay.

Disagreeing with someone’s take? That’s fine.

Engaging in discussion? Encouraged!

But targeted harassment, bullying, sending threats, or trying to force others out of a space just because they don’t align with your views? That’s not just toxic—it’s unacceptable.

I have my own opinions, and I’m open about them. There are ships I don’t personally like, and I have my reasons for that, which I’ve spoken about before. There are interpretations of characters I don’t agree with. But having a different perspective has never meant—and will never mean—that I condone or support people being attacked for their preferences.

Fiction is a space for creativity, exploration, and discussion, not a battleground where people should feel unsafe for simply enjoying a story differently. Myself, and many others have faced threats, harassment, and cruel messages—some from anonymous accounts, others from people openly creating blogs just to send hate. I’ve lost count of the number of people I’ve had to block. It’s exhausting, and it shouldn’t have to be this way.

It’s heartbreaking to see the works of Tolkien—stories that have endured for generations, built on themes of resilience, friendship, and the fight against darkness—be tarnished by those who have no regard for basic decency. Tolkien’s world was never about cruelty, exclusion, or tearing others down; it was about hope, about standing together even in the face of overwhelming odds. And yet, some have twisted this fandom into something unrecognizable, using it as a weapon to attack, belittle, and harass others. It goes against everything these stories stand for, and it’s disheartening to watch a space that should bring joy and inspiration be turned into something toxic by those who refuse to respect others.

It’s okay to severely dislike a ship. It’s okay to find it uncomfortable, problematic, or simply not to your taste. It’s okay to critique the way a relationship is portrayed, to analyze its dynamics, and to express why you don’t engage with it. Fiction is meant to be discussed, interpreted, and even debated. But what is not okay is taking that personal dislike and turning it into targeted harassment against the people who create for that ship. Disliking a fictional pairing does not justify sending cruel messages, threats, or attempting to drive people out of a space just because their interests don’t align with yours.

No one is obligated to like what you like, just as you are not obligated to like what they do.

The solution is simple—curate your own space. Block, filter, and move on. Engage with what brings you joy instead of wasting time spreading hate. Fandom is meant to be an escape, a place to create, share, and find community. No one should have to feel unsafe or unwelcome simply because their creative expression doesn’t match someone else’s preferences.

To those who have been on the receiving end of hate, know that you are not alone. Your love for the characters, your creativity, and your enthusiasm for this world are valid.

No one has the right to police how you engage with fiction, nor do they have the right to dictate what you can and cannot enjoy. If you need to step back for your own well-being, that’s completely okay. If you need to block, curate your space, or disengage from toxic discussions, do so.

Your mental health matters more than proving a point to people who refuse to engage respectfully.

Fandom spaces should be a refuge, a place where we share excitement, ideas, and headcanons, not a place of stress and hostility. If you see someone being targeted, offer support. If you notice someone being worn down by negativity, remind them that their voice and presence are valued. Small acts of kindness—reblogging someone’s work, leaving a nice comment, sending a supportive message—go a long way in making fandom a better place for everyone.

At the end of the day, The Rings of Power is a show. Middle-earth, as much as it means to us, is a fictional realm. We engage with it because it brings us joy, because it inspires us, because it connects us to something greater.

But no story, no ship, no character, and no headcanon should ever come before basic human decency.

Your space in this fandom is valid, and I hope you find the support and peace you deserve.

Stay safe, take care of yourselves, and let’s do better.

[asheepinfrance]

A Night Over

an: enjoy this cute picture of mike because i literally finished this like 2 hours ago and spent so long worrying about making it aesthetic i stopped caring

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He brushes past you as soon as you open the door, barely even a wide enough space to squeeze a body through. You huff, turn around just in time to get knocked into by his overstuffed messenger bag. It’s the same one you recognize from kindergarten cubbies and middle school lockers. 

“Well, hello to you too, Connor.”

You’ve done this all before. You recognize the sound of his body against the couch cushions before you see it, back turned to him to pull some blankets from the coat closet by the front door. You can feel his eyes, though, the way you always can. Intense in everything, even just in observing you move through your home. The home he’s been to more times than he can count on both his hands. He can’t help but to be fascinated by you, though, no matter how many times he’s been around you, bombarding his senses until the only thing his brain has a concept of is his existence relative to yours. 

He keeps a bag packed for nights like these, nights that are more frequent than they should be, and have just been growing more persistent. There’s a tone to his father’s voice he knows too well. Not necessarily anger, but a growing displeasure at everyone and everything around him, including the son that ruins his Facebook family photos and general public image of being a perfect, upper-middle class suburban family. He wouldn’t mind being in a miserable family if everyone agreed on the best way of doing it, but they still clash in that sense. So disjointed they can’t even find the same ways to hate each other, hate themselves.

You sit on the coffee table across from where he rests, hands clasped in your crossed thighs. There’s no need to talk about it anymore. The argument, the topic it took, isn’t the issue. It’s not what drives him out of his house at odd hours of the night to seek refuge in yours. It’s the feeling that if he stayed, there would be no escaping the idea that maybe, just maybe, his father is right. That he is ruining things. Sure, he’d internalized that feeling since birth, thinking and feeling it before his father could confirm he shared the same opinion, but it still hurt to know that he wasn’t his daddy’s little boy anymore. Now, he was the son that could’ve been better, should’ve been better with the resources provided to him. But he’s not normal in that sense, never has been. He wishes he could hit himself on the head hard enough to knock loose whatever is festering in his skull until it comes out his ears. Whatever neurochemical imbalance, whatever parasitic thought, whatever version of himself nestled its way in. 

You unclasp your hands, find your palms redder than they’d started, grabbing at his ankles to place them in your lap. 

“You can sleep in my bed, you know. Your back will thank you.”

You say absentmindedly, beginning the minutes long task of unlacing those scuffed, softened leather boots he always wears. They’d been a product of saved-up birthday money and weeks of not smoking, and he couldn’t help but to feel a little proud for having done something semi-responsible with himself. And now here they are, in your lap, sprinkling wet dirt onto your skin. It’s the same offer you’ve been extending his way for months, held in your palm like it’s fragile, like it means more than just a bed. He never takes it, curls your fingers back over it, nudges your hand back to your side. He means well. He means not to impose the way he does everywhere else. He knows how few places he’s truly welcome. He knows that the best one is wherever you happen to be. He won’t lose it, or he loses himself. But he can’t impose where he is invited. Welcome at all times. Your home is his home, because he doesn’t have one otherwise. Here he is wanted, and he just won’t let that be. 

You curl the undone laces around your fingers, watching the coils turn your skin just that little bit paler under the strained blood flow. He doesn’t stop you. He just watches, like he tends to do. You can feel his eyes follow the movement, whether it’s yours or the lace’s, you can’t quite make out. You look back up at him through weary eyes, the time of night clear in each fleck of color. It’s fairly late, but not late enough for you to look so worn. You’ve been tired for ages, and no amount of laying beneath woolen blankets has been able to rejuvenate you. Remarkably, there aren’t any real bags beneath your eyes. The one way you could cry out for the help you’d so desperately like without verbal confirmation of being anything less than mundane, and you can’t even supply yourself with it. How pathetic. He recognizes the look in your eyes, the plea for him to help himself so you can live vicariously through it. Feel better for having done something. He doesn’t give in though. 

So fine. He can have it his way. Boots are tucked beneath the couch, left to drip onto the wood beneath them. They can rot the whole house away for all you care. You squeeze yourself into that sliver of space he isn’t taking up, face to face so closely that it feels like this is the first time you’ve seen him at all. His left eye has a little spot of brown in it, stuck in amongst blue. A black sheep. He looks behind your head to the wall. It seems easier. He’s met with a framed photo of the two of you. No such thing as an easy way out. So, he does what he does best. Watches. Watches you move some humidity-frizzed hair from his face as if it won’t fall right back where it was, watches you attempt to get comfortable with the singular foot of room allotted to you, watches you pretend the proximity isn’t what makes your eyes look far away and yet so concentrated. He can’t point that part out, he’s sure he looks the same. He watches you sleep, too, for a while. Features softened, smushed, unfurrowed by stress. You look your age this way. You’ve shed years of forced maturation in a single shallow breath. He doesn’t feel it’s an invasion if it’s something beautiful to look at. Artistic, even. Biblical. He shivers, pretends it’s from the cold, the rain, the dampness of his clothes. You hadn’t actually put any of those blankets you’d grabbed to use. He doesn’t want to move. He can feel your heartbeat if he focuses enough like this, breath mixing with his own on your exhales. He thinks it’s almost kissing. It’s better. It’s nowhere near enough. He looks to the ceiling, then back at you. He smiles. Maybe someday he’ll say the obvious. Maybe someday he can impose. But for now feigned relative indifference will do. You know he cares more than he says. You will wake up rejuvenated.

[katerinaaqu]

Lol where did I say anyone's opinions is less than another's for that matter? Actually that is literally what you said to me. That my opinion doesn't matter because someone else had that opinion. And I also love the "I am not afraid to" like I feel honored you think someone would be "afraid of me" but that was never part of my profile to begin with lol. No one said you cannot say your opinions. Ironically you came and say to me that my opinion is off. I mention my ethnicity because of your comment about how Greeks look like and I said that I believe I qualify very much to say how Greeks look like. That is not an opinion that is a fact.

I am pretty sure you are being confused. Greeks are europeans. If akin color is not race (which I agre you can find variants to each race group if one can use that) but my comment just in case it escaped you was to show exactly that when you show different ethnicities that also belong to different races or ethnic groups it should be commendable from all sides. And I as a Greek person know that Greeks come in all different shades within the European spectrum. Not in every shade as to every continent in the world. Of we talk about ethnically Greeks that is. If we talk about people with greek nationality that belong to different ethnic groups of course they are as greek as I am nationally but ethnically speaking Greeks are europeans. People in Africa come in many different shades as well. That doesn't mean that I will hire a Scottish looking person to play an African deity nor will I make a historical film about South Africa or Zimbabwe by hiring people from nowadays predominantly white communities just because they are born and raised in Africa for hundreds of years. The same with Greeks. Greeks were moving around in Africa AND Asia. That doesn't give me the right to cast ethnically Greeks to play ethnically African or Asian people just because "different shades" it just looks wrong. And I would absolutely agree to anyone opposing such a bizarre notion.

Like I said the people that I talked with didn't enjoy it. They mocked it. And again I love it how literally double standards is the reason why you attack me in the first place. That for some reason out of the entire bunch voting here it was MY COMMENT about MY CHOICE that erupted this reaction from you or the other commenter but lol

Okay there were a bunch of people who enjoyed racist movies of the past about Africa as well. Does that make whitewashing of Africa right? Of course not. People disrespected the Egyptian history for ages and yet people enjoyed it. Does that mean we shouldn't make it right? Of course not also Greeks laughed at the inaccuracies for a long time and there is always a breaking point for everything or when someone says "maybe it is starting to get too much" the same way that Greeks also complaint about how North European actors are being constantly hired to play greek figures as well. They liked it once they liked it twice but after decades and decades it became annoying and disrespectful.

And I understand and appreciate your opinion but again if it is not so important then why won’t you let people who DO care speak their mind on them and again I wasn't even speaking on the artist whom as I said I deeply appreciate their style and the way they offer effort to the art and all. If it is not important then why did you step in? Again I insulted no one. In fact people came for me with the will to attack me and they have attacked me before for having an opinion for my own culture and its representation and never have I implied that my opinion is the universal truth or truth for all Greeks etc.

I disagree. Like I said Greek gods to me are better depicted as Greeks wanted them to get depicted. The same that Egyptian gods should be as Egyptian wanted them depicted Indian gods should be as Indians wanted them depicted and so on and so forth so the idea that there is no such thing as accuracy to me is wrong. But as I said before that is my opinion.

Redesigned my Athena.

[thereallyreallylatebird]

Something something... Finetimers not being able to properly walk without being told where to go as a critique on how many people don't form proper and informed opinions on their own and only parrot what they're told by influential political and social leaders

[lyculuscaelus]

So lately I’ve been seeing a lot of posts asking people to stop trying to make Odysseus look nice in their works cuz he’s a “messed-up person in the mythology”. Your opinion is valid however I have but one thing to point out:

You want to know who started all this? Who started to “make Odysseus look nice” in the first place?

It’s Homer. It’s nobody else but Homer himself.

A non-Homeric Odysseus would try to murder people out of his own interests. He’d murder Palamedes without remorse (and we’d be cheering over this but it’s a murder after all), he’d attempt to murder Diomedes just to get the Palladium himself, he’d volunteer to kill Astyanax…meanwhile you wouldn’t find any mention of either Palamedes or Nauplius in Homer’s poems, neither did he mention anything abt the Palladium heist (and Diomedes necessity did not happen until Conon’s version), the death of Astyanax, the distribution of war prizes, etc. And all the details in the Odyssey seemed to deny the existence of Nauplius’s vengeance at all, so Odysseus would not take any of the blame.

A non-Homeric Odysseus would be depicted as “cruel, treacherous”, meanwhile in book 10 of the Iliad Odysseus was not mentioned to have killed anyone during the marauding, neither did he promise Dolan anything at all. The negative interpretations are denied by these details subtly put by Homer.

A non-Homeric Odysseus would be widely known as a “coward” for only shooting arrows from afar. But Homer gave him a spear and had him absolutely slaying in both the Iliad and the Odyssey. That part of Ajax’s speech was invalid already.

Most importantly—a non-Homeric Odysseus would be having kids everywhere else, and the loyalty to his own wife as seen in the Odyssey is no where to be found. Meanwhile his lineage was a single-son line made by Zeus in the Odyssey, and his love for Penelope was one of his main drives, especially seen in book 5 of the Odyssey. He loved his family as a loving parent—something you don’t get to see in most of the non-Homeric writings—for most of the time they followed a different tradition indeed, in which Odysseus wasn’t half as nice as in the Odyssey.

TL;DR: in case you haven’t noticed, the characterization of the Homeric Odysseus was quite different from a non-Homeric version of Odysseus. It’s not that Homer didn’t know of the existence of other versions—he knew them too well, which is why in his version of the story, you don’t get to see any mention of them.

[medicallyfascinating]

For the whole Ferdinand thing, that's completely chill, I get it, don't worry.

Also yes, I love a good debate. I LIVE for it so please please. I feel like we won't ever feel agree on this topic and that's fine but I'm very happy to discuss it.

I think I need to preface that I don't think Edelgard is a horrible awful terrible person with no redeeming qualities. But I also don't think she's the sun and stars and she can do no wrong.

Yes, my empathy take is she struggles to put herself in other people's shoes. Empathy in my mind is - putting yourself in other people's shoes. Sympathy - caring about someone and what they're going through. The lines DEFINITELY DO BLUR.

I think empathy is something that Edelgard has to really really really put her mind to to do it. I think it shows in her interactions with her friends where she initially cannot understand why they're acting in such a way and it's not until much later that she can attempt to put herself in their place and even then, she still struggles with seeing how other people act and how they're feeling. This does not mean I think she doesn't notice/care when others are visibly upset. Clearly when Bernadetta is upset, she tries to comfort her and she's learnt Hubert's signs of distress so she can somewhat recognise when to back off.

I understand that she is trying to pull Hubert out of unhealthy habits but I think characters can be well-intentioned and unhelpful at the same time. Hubert's boundaries are important to him and entirely rigid and he needs them and Edelgard pushes too hard. She is well-intentioned and yet she also manages to push him away and make him put his guard up even more than before. In my opinion, it is an act of sympathy and her issues with empathy show up with her struggling to understand why he is pulling away and refusing to speak up.

These moments I think show much better with her enemies. Her refusal for the most part to compromise with Dimitri and Claude and understand where they're coming from in order to create a better Fodlan. She is BRUTAL. It is stated many times throughout Hopes and Houses that the Empires methods are underhanded, brutal and criminal (not to the extent of decimating villages though).

I believe her grief towards SS!Byleth is a personal rather than political matter. It is practically canon if not completely canon that Edelgard has a crush on Byleth from the start of the game and I believe she is mourning that crush and is still in denial/depression that Byleth has defected from her side.

Edelgard sees this perceived end and I do think she has SOME understanding of what's going on but not an in depth one. Her understanding appears very surface level and when she does dig deeper, she comforts herself with "this is best for everyone" when, in reality, it is not.

Change in Fodlan is revolutionary, yes, i agree. But when in the endings characters like Sylvain and Dimitri can change the world for the better by abolishing crests and implementing new laws which heavily benefit the commoners, Edelgard's ideals and her refusal to acknowledge any other way of going about it does fuck her over.

I do agree that lots of these traits show up in other characters but again, I am not in any way saying that Edelgard is horrible and awful and everyone else is perfect, I am pointing out her flaws. I believe both Dimitri and Claude are heavily flawed. As is Rhea. As are all the other characters in this game.

I, again, think Edelgard's understanding of commoners issues are rather surface level but she DOES understand the trauma of nobility, which is inflicted by the church. So yes, she can pinpoint all the trauma that the nobles have of being forced to be the best and perfect and some being lazy because they're given everything. But when it comes down to what commoners NEED to be able to rise and have their own chance at power, she struggles to understand what is necessary for that to happen.

I also think people can enjoy politics but not always understand what's necessary for the change, but instead just that change is needed. And in Edelgard's mind the only war to do that is start a war, when in reality, that isn't the case and causes more harm than good.

I might be repeating myself a bit, but yeah, these are just my opinions on Edelgard and you're totally allowed to have your own, I won't attack you for it.

I lied. Put your clothes back on. We're going to talk about how Edelgard is a product of her environment.

Edelgard's motives for change are purely based on her own experiences and what she does want for the commoners is poorly thought through and has no more depth other than "I want them to be our equals" whilst having no planned out steps to actually do anything about it.

It is Ferdinand who makes her realise that commoners require free education to even attempt to be able to attain the same level that the nobles are given on a silver platter.

But of course Edelgard wouldn't think about that, because she doesn't have to. She had grown up Princess of a kingdom with the promise of Emperor at her feet since she was around 10 years old. Even when she wasn't promised Emperor, she was promised a comfortable life. Her education would have been paid for her. Of course she doesn't understand the struggles of commoners, because she has never had to.

Edelgard has been through hell but she has not been put through inherited disadvantage so why would she ever consider what it is like to be raised a commoner????

And so of course, when Edelgard sees the church exploiting and hurting everybody she immediately blames crests and becomes so tunnel visioned on her own experiences to make her stronger, she becomes blind to the other very real and much more important issues happening around her.

Edelgard lacks basic empathy and whether it is just something about her or it comes from the intense trauma she experienced as a child, it makes it impossible for her to relate to commoners and pretty much anyone who has a different lived experience to her. To the point where she even treads all over Hubert's boundaries, and he's the person who is the closest to her at the start of the game and agrees with her and her ideals the most.

This not to say she lacks sympathy, I believe she has a lot of sympathy for people. But she cannot for the life of her put herself in other people's shoes and think about how they are feeling/would feel.

This partially causes her lack of basic respect towards Petra and her racism towards Brigid, holding their freedom over their heads in exchange for Petra risking her life for FIVE YEARS and if she doesn't. Well then. No freedom for Brigid. However, this is also caused by being raised within the Adrestian Empire, especially within the Imperial nobility.

But her lack of empathy extends to her friends. I've mentioned Hubert already but she repeatedly makes Ferdinand uncomfortable, she gets snappy with Bernadetta whenever she's panicking, she outright calls Byleth pathetic for grieving their dead father DESPITE STILL GRIEIVING HER OWN DEAD FAMILY. There are hundreds of instances where Edelgard just simply cannot understand anything from someone else's point of view.

I don't hate Edelgard. I don't think I'm capable of hating any character but I definitely do not like the way she goes about things and treats other characters. She has many many many flaws but I do believe she is a product of her environment. As well as a victim of shitty writing (but that applies to all the characters).

[kavalyera]

if u cant handle a simple disagreement then ur immature

[bleue-flora]

i need ur opinion on angel cdream

I’ve literally had this for weeks and this is still all I got…

[beneathsilverstars]

if i failed to protect my kid during the apocalypse and they almost died wandering on their own but got rescued by a team of four competent, battle-experienced adults who cared about them very much and made them feel less scared and useless but refused to let them fight, i think that would be a pretty decent outcome and i'd be pretty okay with it. sure i could dream up a better situation but there's a hell of a lot of worse ones too.

[thelilylav]

I’ve gotta admit as much as I know Darabella is a flawed ship (and some of the ppl who are anti for it have legit criticisms I love y’all for pointing it out cause it frustrates the hell out of me too trust) they’ll always just kind of be it for me.

Because as much as it was an “I can fix him” trope, as much as Rosabella could be selfish and Daring’s flaws got cranked up to 1000, she was also the first person to look at him after his destiny, the thing he dedicated his life to, failed, when people were questioning him as a prince and putting pressure on his and Apple’s relationship and tell him that, like, maybe it would be alright? Maybe this wasn’t his destiny, and maybe that was okay.

And the part that really gets me? She’s the first person after this happens to tell him that it doesn’t matter what’s on the outside, which as much as you can like other Daring ships or him whatever he desperately needed to hear. Not even cause he was selfish, that’s not what I’m saying, but bc he placed his whole identity on this image that people concocted for him based on him appearing the perfect prince. He was handsome, he was talented, and he was handsome! So who cares about him as a person?

Idk man. You spend four seasons (I watch the specials on Netflix so that’s why four idk if it’s three to some ppl or whatever tho) watching him be praised for his looks, watching girls fawn over him, and of course he enjoys it so nobody really questions how much he enjoys it. And then you get this girl, this girl who owes him nothing, this girl who (contrary to popular belief apparently) has a life of her own and people she cares about outside of him, and she’s nice to him. And she’s the first person after everything happens to just be nice to him, for the sake of being nice. Something about that will always hit different for me

[ganondoodle]

okay, bc i have seen this argument alot now (and it also seems to be the view point of aonuma himself..) is that "zelda cant do everything link does bc whats the point then"

and i take personal offense on that bc its a stupid argument (in. my. very. personal. opinion.- not judging people for liking it. its a ME thing)

whats the point? its that its her. its still a different character, different in story, background, personality, but i WANT to play zelda and she can do everything link does, why does she have to be so restricted and be bend over backwards to find some new way to make her 'useful' when link gets to do basically everything no questions asked (the only thing thats hers is like .. sealing power and sacrificial maiden, which i find a little underwhelming to say the least), if theres no point to it why are there always modders that model swap link with someone else, and in that case it has even less impact bc its an artificial model swap with no changes to the story (which can and should still be different when its the vanilla game with a different protagonist... its still a different character), clearly theres joy in just the model being a different one- and that isnt even to mention the story possibilities, since, again, its stil a different character

if we ever (never ... i know who we are talking about here) get to play as ganondorf i want to him to be just as versatile and active as link is, if we got a point and click adventure game for him instead bc 'whats the point' id be disappointed too- you can find any sort of excuse/explanation for zelda to be singled out but the fact remains it tracks with how female characters are often treated, and that hits a very sore spot for me

i guess i am unfortunately one of those annoying people that want to see female characters be treated exactly the same as male characters, possibly bc i am myself afab but identify as agender and have a deeply personal dislike for anything 'traditional' feminine bc i cannot and never will be able to truly live as myself in real life, it influences all of my work, my work is as just as much as my opinion on this, very personal

and in line with my point about modding, i see theres joy in just beign able to play as her even if its like this, i get that, i also get it for the creative aspect (though that mechanic worries me even more for the future bc it really seems to be the path now that -freedom = good, linear anything = bad-) it is a different idea and its not like i cant see that value- im not trying be "right" either, just bc i have that opinion doesnt mean i need everyone to agree, its a very personal thing, if you like it good for you! not for me though, and i think both of that is equally valid

i just personally wish she was allowed to be just like link, fight just like him but be different bc its still her and not him in the end- to be physically/playstyle like jsut like him, but you know ... as her, i dont think shed stop being zelda if she could wield a sword just like him

i dont really know how to get my point/feelings across, i dont want to step too much into personal stuff nor spam people with something that ultimately doesnt interest me alot, im just saddened by it really

(EDIT: bc i forgot to add this on here again; this isnt as much of a problem as it might sound like here, just the main topic i wanted to talk about; why im so uninterested in it is MAINLY bc i dont trust them to write anything interesting/care about lore anymore after totk, im always on the more pessimistic side that thinks its most likely worse than id hope and i know even the past games arent perfect or super interestingly written, but now its much more just a general distrust, together with everything like the price ... im just much less hopeful and cant get excited until i see more of it, like im waiting for the game to get out and reveal that its just as much of a mess and money i regret spending- kind of fear)

[cleveradjacent]

Yeah nah that guy is aroace 100% literally, textually, subtextually, sublingually, paranormally, and because I also say so as an aroace person. You don't even have to answer this ask or anything, but like, the free time they have to go onto someone's blog and try to police their opinions on fiction? Like, Anon needs to take that energy and volunteer in their community or something. Possibly as a clown.

yeah that ask was a bit weird. you can feel however you want about my long-winded tag rants but why are you in my house

[thefriendoforatioisdead]

Honestly I understand that forgivness is very very important in gls. I understand that it is an important value ! And I think it's a good thing, and I understand why it is a necessary part of the happy ends...

However, the whole reason why Ek ended up at the hospital and finally got his little enlightenment is because he broke into Wan's appartment with a gun to commit a double-homicide on his ex-wife and her new girlfriend and then turned it on himself just like he threatened he would to get her to stay with him. He is not a good man who felt very sad because the woman he loves is a lesbian, he is a very scary, abusive man who wanted to kill her because she left him !

It's fiction, so honestly it's not that big of a deal, he did a complete 180 and he got Wan and Pleng out of a tricky situation then realized he was gay and has a thing for doctors, good for him ! It's a happy end for everybody. It won't stop me from sleeping at night.

But frankly, if I could understand all the forgivness moments of every gl until now (even if I didn't necessarily agree), this one is not it for me.