#on videos and some articles

[opencommunion]

"The Global North’s political economy relies on the oppression of the Global South in general and of Palestine in particular.

As academic and writer Patrick Higgins noted in late October: 'We’re seeing a blow against the US-led world system. Since, really post-World War II, but especially post-1970 or so, Israel has been the linchpin, the basket into which most of the American chips are put, in order to sustain broader control of West Asia.'

This historical reality places a profound obligation on those in the Global North who would seek to be in solidarity to seriously consider what strategies and tactics Palestinians are calling for in the struggle for liberation, sovereignty and safety.

Such calls to action do not include that we opine on Palestinians’ methods of resistance.

They do include that we understand the history and actuality of that resistance, do all we can to stop the ongoing provision of arms to the occupation, engage in boycott, divestment and sanctions, and fight back against the criminalization of those who support Palestine’s liberation from Zionist settler colonialism.

As Virginia Tech’s Bikrum Gill exhorted: 'Show no fear, no surrender, as you oppose those who support the US-Israeli genocide of Palestinians. Bring your institutions to crisis if their functioning requires silence or complicity.'"

[tropicalcontinental]

Human fear is the window to the soul or whatever ://

[felassan]

Article: 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard took "so long" as BioWare "wanted to make sure we got this one right" - that, and "it takes a long time to record 700 characters" and 140,000 lines'

The Veilguard is "the best version" of itself that it could be

Excerpt:

"BioWare reveals why Dragon Age: The Veilguard has been in the works for a long, long time - and it sounds like the upcoming RPG is downright massive, from dialogue to voice acting. The 10-year wait for a new Dragon Age is coming to a close as the fall season approaches, meaning that excitement for the game is at an all-time high. Why did The Veilguard take "so long" to come to fruition, though? Speaking in an interview with GamesRadar+, creative director John Epler and creative performance director Ashley Barlow explain why work on the beloved RPG series' soon-to-come entry was seemingly slower. "We had other projects going on at BioWare as well," Epler says. "We wanted to make sure we got this one right." The developer continues, calling The Veilguard "the best version" that the new Dragon Age "could possibly be." Barlow then chimes in, describing how she's been working on the game for five years now alongside its cast of actors: "We started casting five years ago. The team, the talent has been on for five years." And, according to Barlow, five years isn't that long considering the amount of work the cast had to do: "It takes a long time to record 700 characters, you know - 80,000 lines or 140,000 lines with all the Rooks. It just takes time to make good."

[source]

[pop-punklouis]

-

[jacobglaser]

Well this absolutely sucks.

[vimbry]

obsessed w/ this

[bmpmp3]

sorry to be a bit of a hater but i do wish youtubers weren't so scared of making their videos just like, "reviews", whys everything gotta be a "video essay" all the time. every day my recommendations are filled with 40 minute videos titled "_____: An Underrated Masterpiece" where the first like five minutes are reading the wikipedia definition of "masterpiece" in a somber voice with dramatic themed text on screen. please just tell me how good or bad you think something is and use the rest of the runtime to explain why. you dont need to put on all these airs

[hayaku14]

gymnast kaito x sharpshooter shinichi meet-cute in the olympics au

[pinkeoni]

The Great Jonathan Byers Conspiracy

(Or, Jonathan was framed and I'm going to prove it)

So I started a rewatch of the show and I'm on episode two of s1. I get to the part towards the end where Jonathan is taking photos of Nancy. So I think "Okay. This is the part where we see Jonathan take a photo of Nancy topless, right? We see him notice Nancy take her top off and then raise the camera to take another photo, right?"

But that's not what happened

The scene happens as follows. We see Jonathan snap a photo of Nancy— with her shirt on— before the scene cuts inside of Steve's room.

Nancy then removes her top. Nancy and Steve start making out and we cut back to Jonathan who lowers his camera.

This is the part where I expected Jonathan to lift his camera up and start taking more pictures. That's how I remember it happening. But no, we instead see Jonathan focus his attention back to the pool and snap a picture of Barb instead.

So what the hell? Am I being gaslit?

I remember so distinctly a moment where we see Jonathan consciously raise the camera to take another picture of her topless, and yet it's not there. I do still want to clarify however, that the topless photo of Nancy does still exist. We see it clearly in the following episode. So yes, Jonathan did still take a photo of Nancy topless, we just don't see him take it.

But according to a lot of people online, we did see it, the Duffer Brothers just removed it.

I remember hearing about this when it first cropped up, which was partially prompted by the Duffers joking to "George Lucas" Will's birthday in season 2, which they never ended up doing anyway. They also stated on Twitter that no scene had ever been digitally edited, and didn't plan to in the future.

So the Duffers must be lying, right? Otherwise why how would so many people remember seeing that scene? I guess there’s no way to be sure without a DVD or Blu-Ray of the show.

But wait, I have a DVD of season one. I got it for Christmas! But I’m staying at my parents house and I don’t feel like driving three hours just to prove a point. I guess all is lost for the moment.

Unless…

It was at this part of my spiraling that I sent a crazed two minute voice memo at 11:00 at night to my roommate and good friend @lemonsoured filling him in on my conspiracy, and then leaving instructions to go downstairs, locate my season one DVD on the living room shelf, put the DVD into my PS4, go to the end of episode two and take a phone recording of the scene in question.

And lo and behold, the scene of Jonathan taking pictures of Nancy, exactly as it appears on Netflix.

So I am aware that in the video there isn’t much to indicate that this is in fact a recording of the DVD and not a recording of the Netflix version, so you’ll just have to take my word for it. But still, ask any DVD or Blu-Ray owner for what is on their disk, and I can garuntee that they’ll all give the same answer.

Because the shot of Jonathan taking the photo of Nancy never existed. The Duffers aren’t lying. The masses collectively lied to themeselves.

But how did this happen? How did a massive audience full of people, including myself, come to believe that there was a moment of Jonathan consciously taking that photo?

I’ll tell you why. It was a psyop to defame character!

Usually when a new season of Stranger Things rolls around, there comes the flow of comments on twitter saying “Hey, remember when Jonathan took a photo of Nancy changing and now she’s in a relationship with him?” which is usually done in the name of trying to bring down Jonathan and build up Steve.

And I’m not doing this to try to claim that Jonathan is a completely innocent baby who actually did nothing wrong. After all, the topless photo does still exist and as @notmybabies pointed out in the replies of one of posts, Jonathan chose to go through the process of developing it anyway. So he’s not completely off the hook. If the Duffers did want to eradicate Jonathan’s faults, then they would have digitally edited the topless Nancy photo to a different one, something that would have been possible.

But you ever notice how it’s always “Jonathan is a creep” and never “Steve called Nancy a slut and Jonathan a queer?”

I adore Steve, but what I’m trying to see is people seem to try and diminish the depth and complications of both of these characters, and it usually results in fans making Jonathan out to be a sex depraved pervert who has always had it out for Nancy, while Steve is their angel who could do no wrong. Steve couldn’t have had a good redemption arc if there wasn’t a place for him to grow from!

They never want to acknowledge that Jonathan was a lonely kid who made a bad mistake which he apologized for while looking for his brother and that Steve was a different person before he decided to change. Eliminating these character’s depths is eliminating what makes them interesting characters! Neither are completely pure and neither are completely evil!!

So in conclusion:

[plumbus-central]

i love imagining scenarios where morty and summer meet rick and minnie when they were their age, whether through time travel, parallel universe, age regression, or some other sci fi nonsense.

god bless him mortys trying hard to relate to his teenage grandmother from the late 70s

[nemaliwrites]

happened upon this article today, and damn if it didn't get me thinking

i've wondered a lot before about how the same story can be told through different mediums [which primarily can be seen through adaptations] but one thing i don't spend enough time thinking about is how the same story can be told through different word counts

i know people always are like 'a story is as long as it needs to be' but...is it?

i've technically run this experiment a few years ago, with Regrowth at exactly 100 words and Reduce, Reuse, Regrow at over 6000. honestly, it was kind of a fascinating experiment because....are they the same story? really? i guess at their core, you could argue that the plot is the exact same. tldr: giorno turns drug dealers into flowers. and that happens in both versions.

but there is no character in the drabble version, for the OCs and others. we don't get a sense of who giorno is in this story and why he's doing this - all we have to go off of is who he is in canon. we have no idea who tf marco [is that his name? i'm not rereading that to find out LOL] is - versus in the longer version we know about his connection to his family, his botanical garden, the plants he grows, etc. we know about his crush on Sofia. we know that mista saves him, which means giorno thinks he's someone worthy of being saved.

same thing for the police - they don't even get names in the drabble, compared to the names and personalities they're awarded in the longer version.

so...are they the same story?

i've been wondering [and by been wondering i mean i literally thought of this like an hour ago hehe] about how that can apply to other things as well, and this article is a terrific starting point. if you write your longfic as a oneshot, you have to pare down everything that 'doesn't matter' - which i'm using loosely, because as we've established, there are things important to a story that aren't just plot events. but you get such a clear distinction: what are the subplots vs the main plot? who are the side characters vs the main characters? if you have multiple antagonists, who is the one who drives the story primarily? without whom the story cannot exist any longer?

i wonder too if this, in a way, can kind of call back to the snowflake method - which i admittedly have never used but can see how it would be helpful. if you start small, let's say you write your story as a drabble. double it, and double it again. a few more times, and you have something short story length. then novella length. then novel length.

it could also be a way to literally build your story up piece by piece. okay, so you need a couple thousand more words. sure, you could just add a bunch of fluff or 'filler' - or, you could add in a subplot. you could add in a character that is integral to the story. and if you go the other way - from novel to drabble - and can't write a short story without that character, then you know how important they are.

in this way, you can kind of pare everything down to its barest bones, actually. character motivations, stakes, setting.....everything is tied together, which means changing one changes them all.

maybe at some point, you literally get to a point where you can't add anything else - and maybe that's where the story is as long as it needs to be. vice versa, too.

i will run this experiment a few more times and report back o7

[felassan]

PinkNews: Dragon Age: The Veilguard character creator includes the option of top surgery scars [source]

[yellow-yarrow]

have you perhaps a list of readings you would recommend to understand better disco elysium/sacred and terrible air? i wouldn't know where to start and your posts are interesting so worth trying to ask :)

aw thank you! Well, I feel like I’m not really that well-read, and the order I read philosophy/history/etc is all over the place lol

If I had to recommend some reading, there is this essay about the pale, that I think is essential to understanding Elysium. :

https://ghelgheli.substack.com/p/introductory-entroponetics

as for books, I would say Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher could be a good starting point. And I think it would be worth to read something about these topics:

neoliberalism, capitalism

communism - marxism, history of socialist countries

russian nihilism

christianity - dispensationalism

The devs have said that they were influenced by Hegel, Marx, Slavoj Žižek, Lenin, & they also said they used to be anarchists so I would say reading some anarchist text could be interesting too if you want to really dive into it (idk, Emma Goldmann for example)

You can find a lot of these writings on these websites:

https://www.marxists.org/

https://theanarchistlibrary.org

[apotelesmaa]

I think tsukasa is a normie sorry. He does not know memes or internet trends he’s too busy scouring the internet for bootleg theatre productions and practicing facial expressions in the mirror. Guy who could tell you everything you need to know about some obscure actor/play from 100 years ago but does not know a single modern celebrity if they’re not involved in acting. He’s adding new poses to his vast repertoire he is not making banger posts online. “Based? Based on what?” Type of guy.

[icewindandboringhorror]

sometimes looking at like Self Help Strategies lists for the symptoms I'm having is always just like:

thing that I already do

thing I have tried 10 times

thing I already do

thing that I don't have the money to do

thing I already do

thing I've been doing since I was 10yrs old to no avail

thing that is impossible given my situation

thing that doesn't apply to me

thing that I already do

thing I have already tried

hrmm, oh wait, maybe finally- OH, yeah.. okay. thing that I already do but it was just phrased slightly differently

thing I have already done

[kaiserin-erzsebet]

I got a video recommended to me on YouTube that was effectively saying "stop romanticizing Sisi. She wasn't a good empress."

And I have to ask: Do people sincerely think that those of us who like Elisabeth think she was a good empress? I think most of us find her compelling because her personality was so ill-suited for such a structured and confining role. We know she was absent, that she tried to escape it, and that her mental health suffered because of it. These are not knocks against her; they're part of why her story resonates with people.

It feels a bit like saying "Marilyn Monroe wasn't a good actress" or "Princess Diana wasn't good at following royal protocols" because sure, that might be true, but it isn't really the point of why people find these figures interesting.