#the desired endpoint

[bigskydreaming]

The thing that kills me about the Star Wars prequel trilogy and why I will die on my hill that my problem is not that Star Wars is a tragedy, its that its a badly written tragedy, is that Anakin Skywalker was at his closest to being a good Jedi when he was ten years old.

[aliusfrater]

it's really funny to see a post about someone's interpretation of dean with like thousands of notes that i feel like misses several marks regarding his character due to their chronic omission from sam and how sam factors into dean's character/winchester familial dynamics and how it makes dean the tragedy that he is, then when i click on their blog they're a huge lestat fan that doesn't really acknowledge louis. many such cases

[dailyadventureprompts]

See You Back at the Bonfire: Checkpoint Based Resurrection in D&D

Artsource

Between doing a writeup on soulsborne inspired campaign settings and another on the oldschool/newschool disparity between challenge and story, I got to thinking about death and its place in gamified narratives. Darksouls was the obvious influence, but I couldn't help but think of Dungeon Meshi, World of Warcraft, and supergiant's Hades.

Back in the day death was common in d&d, the challenges were unforgiving and the characters were expendable as they were simple. High level might as well have meant "high scoring", as the rewards for overcoming deathtraps and monsters with save-or-die abilities were directly translated into character progression. Death in this instance amounted to a combo breaker, being sent back to square 1 in a roguelike to do it all again. Over time though we started getting attached to our avatars, especially those of us who played primarily for story, leading characters to become too emotionally or mechanically complicated to feed into the blender.

This leaves the modern DM in a bit of a lurch: death by mooks or misadventure denies a satisfying (or heartwrenching) endpoint to the story you're collectively telling with your players. Look no further than Critical Role, where there are a small number of plot-meaningful deaths ( Vexhalia in the Tomb, Mollymauk to the Iron Shepards) and then a much larger tally of obligatory moments where someone fails one too many death saves and requires the use of a spell slot. The DM is forced to play with gloves on much of the time, holding back from creating real challenges because they don't want to kill any of their characters at the wrong time.

What I’d like to propose is that when it comes to challenge vs story we can have the best of both worlds if we’re a little more freehanded when it comes to resurrection. It'll take some tinkering and it won't fit for every story, but as a baseline assumption to the d&d formula, I think it could be quite useful.

How It'd Work: If someone dies before their appointed time , their body can be brought to a local temple to have the gift of life restored to them. Temples of their own deity are thought to work best, but lifegiving deities like Pelor or Illmater are known to be quite freehanded when it comes to raising the dead, and even small countryside shrines are known to work in a pinch. The resurrection may not work if the body is damaged, desecrated, or incomplete, though sometimes the spirit is simply incapable or unwilling to return.

For adventuresome types, this means that if you bite it while exploring the wilderness or some dank ruin you best hope your companions like you enough to drag your corpse back to the nearest altar. Likewise hope that you've kept on good terms with that god. If your entire party wipes, there's a chance for a good samaritan (or enterprising corpse picker) to help you out, though they'll usually help themselves to what's in your pockets in the meantime.

Some temples also sell rare tokens or burnable offerings that can transform any mundane campfire into a one-use resurrection altar, though the expendable nature of these charms mean they are in high demand.

Behind the scenes: what we've done here is turn character death from a plot derailer into a plot generator. Whenever someone in your party dies, it's your excuse to introduce new npcs, questhooks, and worldbuilding. Hades uses this trick to soften the blow of defeat with story progression, and DunMeshi uses it to build out the setting.

We can likewise take a point of inspiration from soulsborne games which use the player's desire to find a safety granting bonfire to spur exploration; What's the first thing the party are going to when hitting a new settlement after renting a room at the inn? Check out the neighbourhood temples to see which of the local gods is sympathetic to them. Same thing with seeking out the shrine nearest to the dungeon entrance before descending lower to face greater threats, which has them engaging with the location's story while discovering a minor questhook to endear themselves to the shrine god.

This is also to say nothing of all the fun adventure-fodder surrounding the mechanics including all the delightful "came back wrong" possibilities.

Finally let's talk about some gameplay assumptions: It's a tricky art building d&d encounters, especially since 5e play tends to default towards having fewer encounters per day, meaning a greater importance on these encounters being more challenging. This is a problem that I and many other DMs have wrestled with; finding the right degree of challenge for the encounter to be meanacing and meaningful, but without going so far as to risk an unexpected character death derailing my game. There's only so many permadeaths a player (and a story) can endure, to say nothing of the narrative killing tpk, which can scrap months of investment and storytelling potential.

Videogame designers figured out this balancing act of narrative and risk a long time ago, bumping characters back to a checkpoint when the player is overwhelmed by a challenge. The Soulsborne franchise built it's reputation on this "If at first you don't succeed, die, die again" mentality, which let them build the challenging ( read: engaging) gameplay the series is known for. Games like Hades go so far as to make this reset a centeral point of furthering the plot, allowing the narrative to expand with each stumble along the player's insurmountable climb.

By allowing characters to be easily revived, we end up with the best of both worlds when it comes to narrative vs. difficulty. The encounters we build can be more challenging in the moment if we know we won't accidently end a campaign if the dice get mean. This also makes players more likely to make big swings and try for optional content knowing the campaign less likely to end if they fuck up.

While some people might take umbrage with the idea of making resurrection commonplace, D&D already allows for characters to be revived though in-game mechanics at the cost of cleric spells and diamond dust. The devs figured out pretty early that even in a game centred around frequent violent clashes, it sucks to have a character you're invested in die unexpectedly, and it's better for the health of the game/narrative to be able to get those characters back at a cost. The problem is that these resurrection mechanics are siloed off to mid/high level characters, when it's the low level adventurers who are most fragile and thus most in need of an in-game safety net.

Secondly, look at the Soulsborne series as the inspiration for this post: part of the reason players are able to "Git Gud" is because the fast respawns allow for players to get right back into the action after making a fatal error, allowing for a "die, die again" playstyle focused on persistence and adaptation. This likewise allows developers to develop gameplay scenarios that are properly intimidating:

[hadesoftheladies]

it's a little funny, because the endpoint of femininity is being the perfect partner to a man. that's literally what femininity is for. that's why it exists. the beauty industry's entire focus is catering to male desire. you aren't taught from day one to be demure just for the sake. it's because you're supposed to be the wife of some man. yet on this site, we can criticize and be sceptical about heels and plastic surgery, but not the end-goal of that career: romantic partnerships with men.

[alicesoinions]

Aspects

My views on Homestuck's Aspects. Part of this analysis is the idea that Aspects have relationships to each other, each bringing the other about.

I will use my own custom Aspect symbols throughout, but the analysis itself is based on canon.

Space

Space is the Aspect of beginnings, of new things. Space experiments and improvises. Space cares about what is possible now, and cares more about the discoveries made in a journey than about a specific endpoint. Space is infinite discovery and potential.

Space is represented by art, fashion, atoms, and frogs.

Space is the color of the night sky, empty beyond human perception, endless and unfathomable but not featureless. Inky darkness, dotted by stars. Space has no color at all, which sometimes results in it using Sburb’s default texture.

Space is opposed to the Aspect of Time.

Space is the fundamental force of creation that gives rise to the duality of Life and Doom well as the unknown mysteries of Void.

Void

Void is the Aspect of the unknown. Of hidden, ill-defined things impossible for us to know or give names to. Void is the Aspect of true reality, of things on a spectrum, of quantum and biology.

Void is represented by water, darkness, and pumpkins.

Void is the color of deep waters, hiding what lies within; its color somewhere on a gradient, but impossible for humans to pinpoint or define no matter how long they stare; Void is the shifting hues of the color of the sky.

Void is opposed to the Aspect of Light.

The unexplored unknowns of the Void hide the untapped potential that is Space, leading to new creation.

Life

Life is the Aspect of agency and self-direction. Life is self-directed and idealistic; Life concerns itself primarily with what Life wants to do, not caring for obstacles or drawbacks. Life sees an infinitude of options, and picks the one it desires.

Life is represented by plants, food, coins, and wealth.

Life is opposed to the Aspect of Doom.

The ultimate freedom to do whatever one wants eventually leads to the ennui of Breath. The interplay of Life and Doom leads to defining one's self in Heart or hiding in Mind.

Doom

Doom is the Aspect of fate and constraint. Doom has burdens and limitations; Doom concerns itself with practical issues instead of lofty ideals. Doom sees no escape or negotiation, going with what others demand of you.

Doom is represented by skulls, death, and fire.

Doom is opposed to the Aspect of Life.

The practical matters and the knowledge of our limits leads to the endless toil of Blood. The interplay of Life and Doom leads defining one's self in Heart or hiding in Mind.

Breath

Breath is the Aspect of detachment. Breath goes with the flow, not caring about anything or anyone in particular; Breath does whatever feels right in the moment, not worrying about much.

Breath is represented by wind, leaves, and rivers.

Breath is opposed to the Aspect of Blood.

The freedom of exploration of and detachment of goals leads to the compromise and negotiation of Hope and to exploration of the self in Heart.

Blood

Blood is the Aspect of effort. Blood has lofty expectations, from both itself and others, and runs itself ragged to accomplish all of them. Blood cares intensely about what it does, without rest or thought.

Blood is represented by blood, sweat, stone, and iron.

Blood is opposed to the Aspect of Breath.

The exertion and toil of Blood eventually lead either to hiding in Mind or to the revolution of Rage.

Heart

Heart is the Aspect of self and emotion. Heart is a person's identity and definition, their emotions and their friendships and their biases. Heart goes with its gut. Heart cares about what its heart directs it to.

Heart is represented by music, hats, and horses.

Heart is opposed to the Aspect of Mind.

Heart’s loyalty and instinct lead to the upheaval of Rage and Heart’s caring nature leads to Blood.

Mind

Mind is the Aspect of thought and masking. Mind coldly adapts itself to circumstance, hiding the true self in order to blend in with what's acceptable. Mind is impartial. Mind weighs all the options, and picks the one most suited to the situation.

Mind is represented by masks, blindfolds, and scales.

Mind is opposed to the Aspect of Heart.

Mind’s bottling of emotions leads to the real detachment of Breath; and Mind’s adaptive nature leads to Hope.

Rage

Rage is the Aspect of rebellion. Rage is skeptical of what society presents as true, and fights tooth and nail for what it stands for. Rage riots and fights back; Rage would sooner bring revenge than healing. Rage fights for sudden change.

Rage is represented by fangs, beasts, and waves.

Rage is opposed to the Aspect of Hope.

In fighting against their shackles, one gains the newfound options of Life. Rage’s sudden changes forms half of the past events of Time.

Hope

Hope is the Aspect of diplomacy. Hope believes everyone is good at heart, and that everything could be solved if only everyone talked things out. Hope has blind faith and will sooner comfort a friend than hurt an enemy. Hope solves things slowly and steadily.

Hope is represented by religion, ribbons, and blankets.

Hope is opposed to the Aspect of Rage.

Hope’s compromises and negotiations lead to new shackles in the form of Doom. Hope’s slow changes form half the past events of Time.

Time

Time is the Aspect of the past. Time is concerned with traditions, patterns, and the inevitability of what came before. Time brings the authority of established rules and governance. Time looks to what was to decide what will come about.

Time is associated with gears, crowns, sand, and clocks.

Time is the color of a gear turning to rust, of blood leaving a vein, of a game timer running out. Time powers shine in all colors at once before they settle on one.

Time is opposed to the Aspect of Space.

The knowledge of the established patterns of Time leads to the knowledge and definition of Light.

Light

Light is the Aspect of definition. Light has clear rules, clear definitions, and clear answers. Light creates frameworks of understanding and puts things in black and white, right and wrong, relevant and irrelevant, which can sometimes lead to ignoring the gray areas between. Light is the Aspect of human knowledge of the world, our ideas, stories, and sciences.

Light is represented by the sun, fire, and compasses.

Light is the blazing color of the sun, impossible to look at for long, but shining its light everywhere, a white light that returns as a myriad of colors.

Light is opposed to the Aspect of Void.

The sharp delineations of Light ignore the gray areas outside definition, creating Void.

[da-mous]

More terminology from Whipping Girl that needs to make a comeback:

Oppositional Sexism

"The belief that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive categories, each possessing a unique and nonoverlapping set of attributes, aptitudes, and desires"

This is defined separately from "traditional sexism," aka plain old misogyny

The author, Julia Serano, argues that oppositional sexism is the root of both transphobia and homophobia--which both essentially function to prevent people from blurring the lines between the categories

From my perspective, this "policing of the borders" is necessary for a patriarchal society to exist in the first place. If everyone believes that men are fundamentally logical while women are emotional (and thus apparently irrational), then it becomes easy to argue that men should hold power and women should be subordinated

Deviant expressions of gender and sexuality, then, present a challenge to the argument that justifies the patriarchal project, and so they have to be punished and pathologized. Unfounded claims of "autogynephilia" and "bathroom predators" serve to explain trans women away in terms of "male" sexuality, positing that we couldn't possibly be dressing or acting femininely as an expression of an intrinsic sense of self, so then it must be some kind of fetish or elaborate ploy to predate on "real" women, who of course require no explanation for dressing or acting feminine. This preserves the idea that (cis) women act femininely because of some fundamental, core essence that's exclusive to them, and which justifies their subordination

Finally, I'd like to zoom out a little further and suggest that this is a fundamental aspect of how all oppression works, not just sexism. Power must always justify itself, and so CEOs are at the top because apparently they're just the smartest and hardest-working, and the poor are at the bottom because they're just simply stupid and lazy. The logical endpoint is always that the powerful hold power because they possess intrinsic qualities that others don't, which make them uniquely deserving of it

[tobiasdrake]

Incidentally, I talk a lot about how corporate America is just a feudal state with brands instead of borders. Particularly with the way meritocracy is basically just rebranded Divine Right of Kings. "I am worthy of wielding absolute power over you because of this nebulous factor that sounds really meaningful but is functionally unfalsifiable and self-reinforcing."

"I deserve wealth and power because God blessed my lineage/I am the hardest working person, and the way to prove that God blessed my lineage/I am the hardest working person is that I wouldn't have wealth and power if it weren't true." It's a rhetorical loop used to defend and uphold a corrupt system.

It's designed to discourage people from taking collective action against an unjust state. Is your life situation shitty? Well, maybe you should pray more/work harder. That's it. That is the only salve for your woes. If you're suffering, it's because you haven't been pious enough/worked hard enough, so go fix yourself and stop whining to the king about it.

But also.

I need y'all to understand.

That in addition to rebranded Divine Right of Kings.

We also have. Literally. The Divine Right of Kings in corporate America.

It's an American invention born of the 1950's called Prosperity Gospel. The idea is that God blesses those most worthy with wealth. If you have lived justly, God will reward you with money. If you have lived unjustly, God will condemn you to poverty.

Under Prosperity Gospel, becoming a billionaire happens strictly by will of God. All billionaires are chosen by God to lead our country, and the people who are struggling in poverty are so struggling because they are, every last one of them, sinners guilty of turning against Christ and thus deserving of their cruel and merciless fate.

Prosperity Gospel is how Conservative Christianity is able to reconcile the difference between Christ's anticapitalist leanings and their own desire to fill their coffers with as much money as they can steal from the poor and disenfranchised. It exists for the purpose of persuading Christian followers to see the ultra-rich as modern-day messianic leaders.

This idea, which is literally just the Divine Right as written, no rebranding required? This is how you create a church for billionaires our of a faith that condemns the wealthy in no uncertain terms. This is how you marry religion to capital and create a force strong enough to overpower government.

And that is the cultural force we are dealing with on the right. Prosperity Gospel and Meritocracy propping each other up as a religious and secular version of the same root concept. Two sides to a coin that combine to create a force of thought control. Enshrining patterns of behavior and belief whose endpoint is the cult-like surrender of power and control to a population of grifters.

[wise-rainfalls]

The Professor Case - Three Sad Faces and Three Dead Men

There is a man in your life you love, admire and respect more than anything. Your greatest desire is to follow in his footsteps, and to eventually make him proud. However, before that can happen, he tragically dies under obscure circumstances. You’d do anything to know what happened; to give him some sort of justice. But the more you know about the truth, the more you realise that maybe he wasn’t as noble as he always appeared. Before his death, he left you a letter that you didn’t receive.

Are you Barok van Zieks, Asougi Kazuma or Gina Lestrade?

The heart of the drama of the Professor case is made up by this series of cascading tragedies, where each is both a repetition of and directly caused by its predecessor. The cycles of betrayal, disillusionment and grief play out in delayed motion across time, the same story with different characters wound to different speeds so they all come crashing to their endpoint at once. The spiral of repetitive continuation joins the three tales both into one continuous history, and also the same tale interposed three times upon itself. Kazuma’s story cannot begin without Barok’s coming to its first temporary end, just as Gina’s cannot without Kazuma’s catalysis. Yet as we line up Gina, Kazuma and Barok, we see the same face, displaced across time – tearful and shocked, furious and vengeful, bitter and resigned. In the same way, we see Klint layered over Genshin layered over Gregson: deeply loved, sharply fallen, and dead.

This triangulation, more than anything else, emphasises the game’s thematic throughline that the past cannot be put to rest without the truth. Klint’s lies become Genshin’s lies become Gregson’s lies, just as Barok creates Kazuma creates Gina. Past, present and future collapse into a grief that endlessly reproduces itself. The impossibility of moving forwards when the threads of bewilderment and doubt remain manifests itself in the literal reiteration of the event, again and again. Time loops between the courtroom and the graveyard. The years pass. The years do not pass.

In this temporal overlap, Gina articulates the grief that wells beneath Barok’s bitterness and Kazuma’s sharpness, while Kazuma’s single-minded vengeance is a warning as to how easily that grief might be shaped into a sword, and Barok shows by example what lies at the end of that path: ten years later still unhappy, still chained. As they come together in the courtroom, Gina in the witness stand, Barok in the dock and Kazuma at the prosecution’s bench, it is a symbolic trial of not the self, but the role. To leave one of them still trapped in the morass is somehow to leave all of them – their shackles, after all, are the same. The question that passes between them, from corner to corner is this: is it a crime, to have grieved so deeply that your grief became a weapon? The outcome of the trial doesn’t quite answer this question. It asks another instead: is grief grounds for justice? And crucially: who was holding the weapon that grief made of you?

However, of this unhappy triangle, Barok is the only one to have actually completed the climactic, mistaken, mistrial of justice. He is the only one to have received closure at the cost of integrity, and to have lived with the aftermath. He is the only one to not only have believed he knew the truth, but also that he had delivered justice. While Kazuma stands on the cusp, and Gina is literally at ground zero, Barok has both the advantage and misfortune of hindsight. Hindsight – and reflection. He hasn’t escaped his story. But he has walked out the other way, into what he believes is the long epilogue, when it’s in fact just the sagging middle. It’s what allows him sharp, pointed insight into the other two: he recognises himself in their faces.

Van Zieks: I say nothing of whether or not I'm the Reaper. That's the task of this court to decide. But there is one thing I can say unequivocally: That girl is no detective.

Gina: Eh? Wha...? Nah, that's right, I ain't. I'm an inspector!

Van Zieks: Repeating rumours heard around the Yard... Reading entries from a notebook of unconfirmed origin... That's not testimony. It's practically a script. No doubt the rest of this trial will go exactly as you've clearly planned.

Kazuma: .........

Van Zieks: Your hatred of me is understandable. In your mind, I'm sure I am the Reaper...who sent your father to the gallows all those years ago.

Kazuma: ...!

Van Zieks: But you're in danger of becoming a far more sinister Reaper yourself... ...by attempting to have me condemned with this feeble excuse for testimony.

The ease with which Barok identifies the truth is striking. This is a scripted trial. Gina’s grief is causing her professional integrity to fall apart, a fact that Kazuma is using to indict Barok. Kazuma’s anger is causing his professional integrity to fall apart as he treats the courtroom like his personal arena for revenge. Kazuma’s anger, Barok demonstrates, is something he understands, deeply. Gina’s grief is something to this day he mirrors. Yet, Barok harshly points out, emotion is no excuse for a miscarriage of justice. It’s a show of both deep understanding and scathing judgement. The cool-eyed detachment with which he evaluates the situation is admirable. It is also something Barok from ten years ago would not have been able to do.

However, there is a fatal flaw in all this, which is that it’s much easier to recognise when an accusation is false from one end than the other. As ever, Barok stops just short of applying the same tier of insight into the events of ten years past, looking just to the left of the gaping wound that the trial left. Even as more and more irregularities come to light, it is only at the final push that he truly faces to the idea that this one trial could have been a massive pile of lies. This is an incredible blind spot, coming from the man who espouses he ‘trusts no one’, who has the both the suspicion and the deductive ability to find out Gregson’s position as the Reaper. It is an incredible blind spot, coming from the man who had the clarity to suspect, even for a moment, his own, dear, brother.

It's here that we see Barok’s true weakness – and the damning piece of evidence of how deeply he is still chained to that moment, ten years ago. Can a prosecutor of Barok’s calibre truly never have suspected, if not at the time, then ten years later? Even as Sithe’s lies came to light, even as Gregson’s involvement in the Reaper became apparent? But as Barok rejected Klint’s guilt, so he rejects that the events were not as he believed them to be: on the basis of evidence, to be sure, but evidence given disproportionate weight for how much he did not want it to be true. Even as Kazuma desperately links every piece of evidence, no matter how unfitting, into his certain conclusion that Barok is Gregson’s killer, so Barok takes what evidence he receives and slots them neatly into the narrative he most wants to believe: this man died so my brother cannot be guilty, the ring was found so Genshin must have committed the crime. He refuses to entertain alternative pathways, even as doubt creeps in. Even as things stop fitting. Until the very last moment, when he is forced with damning evidence to change his stance, he clings to his brother’s innocence. Within him grind the cogwork of his truth-seeking logic machine mind against the bloodied flesh of his heart. After ten years, that flesh is wearing thin.

It's this that brings him to the exact same level as Kazuma and Gina, who fight for Genshin and Gregson’s innocence respectively. However, it cannot all be true at once. All three cannot be innocent together: something has to give. As each of them beseech Ryuunosuke for comfort, they find instead the truth.  

But let’s step back a little. The similarity between Gina, Kazuma and Barok make the differences in how they are treated startling. Barok, on displaying a lapse in professional integrity following the worst events of his life, receives full prosecutorial authority from Stronghart to go head-to-head in the trial of his brother’s death. Meanwhile, Stronghart allows Kazuma to slide in sideways, using Gregson as a cudgel to pin Barok for Genshin’s death. But Gina, when she breaks down in court and cries out that Gregson is innocent, is harshly reprimanded and told to hand in her badge. Why the difference?

The answer is obvious: a noble young prosecutor is a much more useful tool to Stronghart than a barely literate pickpocket from the streets of East London. The debt Barok owed to Stronghart protected Stronghart from suspicion for nearly ten years, while enabling Stronghart to centre an entire conspiracy around Barok in the blind spot that debt created. Similarly, Kazuma is a useful tool to wipe out the Reaper conspiracy’s last members and exonerate Stronghart once and for all while being easily disposed of as a foreign exchange student. But what’s Gina got to give? What value does Gina have that Stronghart might find useful? The answer is: nothing. Gina has nothing, and so it’s her that Stronghart lets loose on his distaste, his condescending dismissal. It’s her that he belittles and talks over – that his true feelings for those he has used comes out.

Barok is the first and most perfect paradigm of the narrative that the other two emulate. Immediately after his brother’s death, he seeks out the culprit (so he thinks) and prosecutes him successfully in court for the crime which he seeks vengeance for. Kazuma is a little shakier: ten years after his father’s death, he seeks out the culprit (so he thinks) and prosecutes him on the basis of an unrelated crime while barely hiding that his real reason is his father’s death. It’s with Gina that the real tears in the fabric show: disoriented and grieving, she’s dragged into court and gives emotional testimony that implicates someone she’s not even 100% sure is guilty. She isn’t even the one doing the prosecuting. These are different stories, with the difference in perfection scaled primarily by how perfect a tool Stronghart sees in them. But they are also the same story, dressed better or dressed worse. And they reach the same ending.

When the dust finally begins to settle, we zoom into how each of them react to the momentous change in their understanding of their own lives. Standing before Klint’s portrait, Barok takes the painful step to acknowledge that his brother is truly ‘no more’, even as he wears his prosecutor’s badge with mixed feelings to the complex legacy left behind. Kazuma entrusts Karuma to Ryuunosuke with the promise to retake it after mastering the violence he suddenly realised he was capable of. But Gina, surrounded by her friends, takes back Gregson’s pocket watch and vows to uphold his legacy by becoming a great detective herself.

At first glance, this raises a lot of question marks. Has everyone forgotten that Gregson was involved in a double-digit number of murders? Well, to some extent, yes. However, from another perspective, while Barok has to grapple with the person he became in upholding a false legacy, while Kazuma has to grapple with the person he felt the potential of being in chasing a false vengeance, Gina had not yet taken the steps towards becoming an upholder of falsehoods herself, wittingly or unwittingly. It is with this uncomplicated sincerity that she can take on Gregson’s legacy, since it never yet had the chance to twist her into bitterness or hatred – as it did to Barok, and as it did to Kazuma. While she may have to grapple with Gregson, she does not have to grapple with herself. In the worst time of their lives, Barok had Stronghart, who plunged him into a ten-year long darkness and scapegoated him as the Reaper. Kazuma had no one, only memories, and anger enough almost to kill. But Gina had Ryuunosuke, and through him, the truth – for all.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Some people, in defense of generative A.I., will claim that A.I. builds from influences the same as human beings do.  This is, to me, the first indication that I’m talking to somebody who either does not understand how A.I. works, how human creativity works, or most likely both.  Something that needs to be clearly understood is that A.I. has no intelligence.  It does not “think”.  It is a predictive text program that simulates human expression by ingesting unfathomable amounts of data and trying to replicate that data.  It does not know and can not know what meaning its outputs have.  Further, it has no desire and no emotion to motivate action or decisions.  It simply runs a program and assembles pixels or words to match what seems most like other correct pixels and words in its vast data set.  It aggregates.  It produces averages. Humans, obviously, do not create like this.  Humans have intentions and purpose to what we do.  These intentions are sometimes deep, sometimes shallow, sometime clear, and sometimes nebulous.  But we always have emotion and thought connected to what we make.  What we create is guided by intent colliding with discovery, and these two states feed each other.  And the influence that we draw from existing work is not an analysis of pixels, but an emotional response to how that work makes us feel.  Even in analytical study of form or anatomy, our brains do not operate like computer programs.  While committing information to memory, we also interpret and seek to understand and this affects how that information is later able to be used.  Because we are each an individual, infinitely complex being, our different physiological, environmental, and cultural variations bring us to infinite different endpoints.  Like it or not, we all see the world slightly differently and our creative expressions reflect this. It has become standard to describe A.I. as a tool.  I argue that this framing is incorrect.  It does not aid in the completion of a task.  It completes the task for you.  A.I. is a service.  You cede control and decisions to an A.I. in the way you might to an independent contractor hired to do a job that you do not want to or are unable to do.  This is important to how using A.I. in a creative workflow will influence your end result.  You are, at best, taking on a collaborator.  And this collaborator happens to be a mindless average aggregate of data. To some, the prospect of collaborating with the sum average of all artists is apparently an attractive prospect.  Maybe you feel you are below average in some areas and the A.I. will therefore raise the quality of those areas.  But every percent that you hand over to the A.I. is a percent less of your unique voice, perspective, and intention.  And for folks who use A.I. generations wholesale, that comes out to a 100% loss of anything personal or unique that they might bring.

[danbensen]

I’m trying something new here, which is to write off the cuff, with little editing, and press the “post” button without much thought. I’m doing so because this is the first spare moment I’ve had to respond to 

Bassoe’s response to my review of C.M. Kosemen’s soon-to-be published book All Tomorrows, and I don't want to let this interesting conversation wither on the vine.

If you had trouble following that last sentence, it’s enough that you know this: we’re talking about the evolutionary future of humanity.

The Machine-God Scenario

Bassoe talks about “machine-gods...obsessed with tending to the well-being of an inferior species” where “the only remaining selection pressure is desire to reproduce.”

Another selective pressure would be to make ourselves adorable to the machine-gods. Perhaps the gods have a template for what they consider to be human, in which case we'll only be able to evolve in ways that don't deviate from that template. I'm reminded of a Stephen Baxter story (Mayflower II) in which humans on a generation ship turn into sub-sapient animals, but they still press buttons on the control panel because that behavior is rewarded by the ship's AI.

The Super-Tech Scenario

But I agree that even without a super-tech future where all our material needs are met, the availability of contraception means that there's a selective advantage to people who don't use contraception. There are many ways for evolution to make that happen. An instinctive desire for babies or an instinctive aversion to contraception are two such ways. I remember a Zach Weinersmith cartoon where he jokes about future humans with horns on their penises that poke holes in condoms, but of course any such physical adaptation won't be able to keep up with technological innovation. We will have to *want* babies.

Another option is (ala Kurt Vonnegut's Galapagos) that future humans aren't smart enough to use contraception.

The Artificial Womb Scenario

In this case, I think the most selected-for humans are the ones that are most efficiently produced by the artificial wombs. Maybe it's easier to pump out limbless grubs, which are fitted with cyborg arms (see John C. Wright's Myrmidons in his Count to the Eschaton Sequence). The form they take will depend on the parameters of the machines' programming. (see also Vanga-Vangog's The Endpoint)

The Collapse Scenario

I think this scenario is unlikely. If "life, uh, finds a way," then intelligence finds even more ways. When one resource runs out, we find another. The mere fact that you don’t know what the next resource is just means we haven’t found it yet.

But say for the sake of argument that there's a hard limit to technological progress (ala Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky) or science really is like mining, and it takes infinitely increasing resources to make the next marginal gain in technology. In both cases, you'd expect the graph of human advancement to look like a population when it hits carrying capacity. Exponential growth (we're doing that now) followed by a cycle of die-offs and re-growths, converging to a horizontal mean.

With no ability to innovate, natural selection would take over from technological progress. Once we’ve eaten all the meat and potatoes, there will be strong selection for people who can digest grass. I would expect humans in this case to diversify until our descendants occupy nearly every niche, absorbing most of the matter and energy available on Earth (at least). Whether these people are intelligent or not...probably not. @simon-roy seems to be hinting in this direction with his masterful comic series Men of Earth.

But I don't actually think collapse is likely. I bet that our population (and technological advancement) will not hit an asymptote, but will instead as progress according to a power law, as with the bacteria in Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiment.

The Mogul Scenario

Bessoe asks about a future in which “our cultural norms stick around indefinitely, those who generate more profit reproduce,” which I very much doubt.

In 20th century America, the more money you made, the fewer children you had. Now, it seems there's a saddle-shaped distribution, with the very poorest and the very richest women having the most children per woman. This is sure to change again, and faster than evolution can keep up. Perhaps you could say that if contraception pushes us to evolve an instinctive desire to have more children, and rich or powerful people will be in positions to gratify these instincts, then whatever traits make someone rich and powerful will be selected for.

Maybe, but now's a good time to go back to the Reich Lab's "Pervasive findings of directional selection," summarized here by the illustrious Razib Khan.

In comparing ancient to modern DNA, the Reich Lab found evidence for selective pressure in humans in Europe since the end of the Ice Age: increased intelligence, increased height, decreased organ fat, increased walking speed, decreased susceptibility to schizophrenia, increased immunity to many diseases, and, funnily, increased tendency to home-ownership and university education.

Obviously people weren't going to college in the Chalkolithic, but whatever traits make someone likely to go to college now have been selected for since the arrival of agriculture in Europe. You can paint a plausible picture of the sort of people who were most reproductively successful in the past six thousand years, and there is even some evidence for selection in the range of 1-2 thousand years. Aside from obvious things like immunity to smallpox and Bubonic plague, Europeans have gotten paler and blonder, and more of us are able to digest lactose than in Roman times.

But the 21st century is very different from the 1st, which in turn was very different from the pre-agricultural -70th. Maybe you can say that being smart, strong, and disease resistant have always been good, and being tall and baby-faced gets you some sexual selection (almost everyone seems to have evolved shorter jaws and lost their robust brow-ridges in parallel). So we can imagine future humans who just all look gorgeous.

read on (and see the pictures)

[velvetvexations]

how dare you say that trans women online believe things that they have very frequently openly said that they believe

I'm a monster.

i can't stop thinking about this whole dropout thing, and after browsing through the dropout confessions blog, i think i can put my finger on part of what's sitting so wrong with me

there's a conflation of "trans people getting exposure and jobs" with "representation." i wholeheartedly agree that dropout could be a great platform for trans comedians to get exposure - but those trans people aren't "representation" of anything. they just ARE. those are PEOPLE, not characters.

it belies the selfishness of this whole thing, yknow? it isn't about uplifting trans people. it's about asking "how can i see myself in this." all well and good for fictional stories, but....real people don't have a responsibility to be "representation."

Yeah, it's very unfocused. It could be either of those things but there's not any structure to the argument so they keep getting mixed together.

this just in: trans women aren't allowed to be associated with snakes because, as we all know, Snakes Is Penis. sorry transfem herpetologist ya gotta get a new job

And it's just the worst thing ever to hypothetically refer to a woman as having a penis.

I love how many of us go to the mall. Velvet nation do be shopping!

I'm a mall girl trying to live a mall life.

Looking at the Droupout thing, I think a major takeaway should be 'don't reblog informational posts unless you have verified the information yourself, especially when those posts are accusing people of bigotry'. People can and do weaponize social justice and people's desire to do good. Fact-checking does not make you a bigot. And not reblogging something doesn't make you a bigot either. It's okay to say 'I don't have enough information or context about this to share this post'.

Unfortunately they've began to weaponize the average Tumblr user's poor grasp of math.

Psst... do you know Mononoke? Not the Ghibli one, the one from 2007. I watched the recent movie the other day and the animation definitely hasn't altered my brain chemistry and I'm so profoundly normal about it (lie)

Yeah, me and my partner both adore it.

got a reply that accused me of being a transmisogynist because i refused to engage in their bad faith argument about the existence of transandrophobia on a post that... wasn't about the existence of transandrophobia lol

well it is now

maybe i'm just not as terminally online these days, but i don't really get the point of the recent dropout discourse. like yeah – post about how you want to see transfems on dropout! point out some transfem comedians you think would work well on dropout shows! but like? is there an endpoint to this discourse? shows aren't made overnight. if dropout producers/casting directors/etc are listening to the criticism then we won't actually see any of the fruits of it for another year. it's frustrating to see people acting like increasing diversity of real life workplaces is just pressing a button and that it doesn't take a lot of time & effort to scout talent, find shows that work for them, arrange production schedules, etc, etc, so that the people involved are actually treated as valuable & equal members of the cast and not just a diversity hire.

and i'm sure if dropout releases a statement right now it'll be criticized as being performative (as statements like those always are regardless of the context or sincerity). a boycott for something like this is never going to be effective because it's just going to take away revenue from an independent company that makes queer centered media and thus prevent them from developing new shows/find new talent. (to be clear, i don't think dropout has done anything to warrant a statement or boycott or anything. it would be one thing if there was actual evidence of transfems being actively excluded or transmisogyny that isn't a one off joke that was taken the wrong way.)

idk it's just a continued trend of "new popular creator/company that's inclusive and actively supports queer people" -> "creator/company isn't quite as diverse or progressive as its audience" -> "manufactured drama starts in the audience" -> "creator/company loses a lot of its audience, has to downscale projects, and it drops out of mainstream culture/is seen as cringe or bad for nothing." every time i think that surely we've gotten better at handling diversity criticism in progressive media, we fail again.

sorry this is so long, i'm not even a huge dropout fan (and maybe i would have stronger feelings about the diversity of the cast if i was) but it's just depressing to see this many people spend so much time complaining & analyzing the trans rep on dropout when there are so many bigger problems for trans people these days.

the endpoint is getting attention for whining lol

It's interesting to see you accused of lying when I doubt they could come up with an example that isnt either:

A) something you genuinely misremembered and have already addressed and corrected

Or

B) you talking about the beliefs another person has expressed on their blog and using a term they don't use to describe those beliefs (e.g. trf, baedell)

Thank you anon!

wait til people hear about transmascs whos star sign is virgo. u mean tell me ur star sign is MAIDEN VIRGIN??

astrology is transphobic

Hey, as a POC you’re definitely not racist nor have i ever felt uncomfortable by your blog or views and opinions. Also, it would definitely be weird of you to go out of your way to reblog more poc just to fill an invisible ���quota” that from my experience, only bigots have in order to appear not-bigoted. Im not saying you do that or the like, i hope this makes sense 👍

Thank you as well, anon!

Oh man bigots on here really like just throwing word salad at you and accusing you of crazy shit out of fucking nowhere.

I hope youre taking care of yourself, you deserve kindness

I'm doing my best.

Do you/have you played my candy love?

I haven't!

[lullabyes22-blog]

Just quickly dropping by a compliment: The entire weekend I spent reading Mal de Mer, and I couldn't decide what I liked best. First Mel is so beautifully captured in her aspiration to have her methods work, and shinning by politicizing. Although going against Silco, trying to compromise while not getting shallowed up is a perfect ground to showcase how gifted she is, and has found a worthy for in Silco. But the added tension of them loving desiring each other while walking the razor blade thin line of being political bodies with primarily political interests? I have neither and idea nor words how you were able to capture that tension which is simultaneously magnetic, dramatic and delicate to describe but you did it! What I also liked is a rare fanwork in which Mel's and Jayce's past romance got treated fairly. With all her ambition, Mel's and Jayce's feelings were vital to their connection, they still care for each other no matter what might stand between them. Last but not least. Your prose with high register adjectives, the dialogue which is constantly working like a labyrinth with an endpoint both characters want to direct the other to reads how I would imagine Mel to narrate a story in her mind. I enjoyed your work greatly, and will be happy to read Forward but never forget next! (Also, I already had my suspicion how rarepare-ish Mel/Silco would be but I didn't expect to find a multichaptered work of art in that corner of the fandom.)

Thank you so much for such an incredibly thoughtful and eloquent comment<333

Mal de Mer was absolutely one of my favorite pieces to write, and it makes me so happy that you picked up on all those themes explored!

Much as I love Silco and Mel as characters, it's impossible to separate them from the 'body politic' - which is the entire reason why the Zaun-Piltover dynamic in S1 was so much fun imo. That Mel is a woman who wants to succeed as a woman is not just a personal choice; it's a statement of her city's prosperity, and also of not being diminished by her mother's shadow, and the shame of banishment that still haunts her like a spectre. And through it all, she must carve a path through her family's bloody legacy, and leave behind change that ushers in light instead of shadow, while making sure her personal desires don't eclipse her empathy.

Mel's not a moral paragon by any means; but she is a moral force, and I really wanted her characterization to reflect that the most important thing for her isn't always what's right, but what's just. (The flipside of the 'equity' theme that Silco espouses in Forward but Never Forget/XOXO)

Jayce's presence was always important to the fic because he's such a perfect mirror for Mel - absolutely radiating that raw goodwill and visionary drive for progress. He's the person that's most likely to remind Mel of how far she's come, how much she's sacrificed, but also how little she's grown up at heart from the girl who wanted nothing more than to be merciful. His relationship with Mel in S1 is so interesting because it's built, ostensibly on political gamesmanship, but beneath that, on a mutual understanding that is both deeply sweet - and deeply tragic - because in S2, Jayce's idealism only urges him to fly closer to the sun, only to get burnt and fall, while Mel must sacrifice her own idealism on the altar of a better tomorrow.

(Weirdly, that theme got mirrored in FnF, too...)

But through it all, I do believe that they'll always care for each other; and that their feelings are genuine and pure, even if their motivations aren't always aligned.

Thank you for the lovely comment, and I hope FnF proves an enjoyable read<3

[ewingstan]

Reading through the Dinah interview in 16.3. Still need to see how its executed, but Parahuman society reaching a point of "which large-scale manipulator of human events are we gonna support" is a pretty spectacular plotbeat to bring in. Its makes for a great natural endpoint to the idea of parahumans having untold power over humans, to the setting's whole conceit of an individual having enough power to make imposing their desired outcomes over an entire population trivial. Dinah laying out "here was my desired endgoal to strip you of power, now lets talk about how you can help me from stopping Contessa or Teacher from enacting their endgoal" is doing a lot to communicate just how bad a place the heroes are in. Much more than all the talk of the Dauntless Titan/Machine Army/Sleeper/etc, this is the conversation that sells how hopeless a return to normalcy is for this setting.

[yourbutcboyfriend]

The Complex Journey from MtF to MtM: Navigating the Spectrum of Gender Identity

Gender is a deeply personal, evolving, and sometimes bewildering aspect of who we are. It’s not a simple binary, nor is it a linear path, as many once assumed. Over the last few decades, society has slowly opened its mind to the idea that gender is not determined solely by biological sex. The rise of trans and non-binary visibility has brought us closer to understanding how intricate this terrain is. Yet, the transition from MtF (Male to Female) to MtM (Male to Male) unveils a layer of complexity that isn’t often discussed, demonstrating that our relationship with gender can shift throughout life in ways that defy expectation.

This unique journey—moving from identifying as male, then female, and back to male—challenges the oversimplified narratives around transition and prompts a deeper exploration into what it means to live in the constantly shifting landscape of gender. It is a reflection of both personal discovery and the broader truth that gender is an ongoing conversation between the body, mind, and society.

Understanding Gender Identity: The Evolution of Self

For many, the initial step of transitioning from Male to Female can be rooted in the deep-seated recognition that the gender assigned at birth doesn’t align with how one feels inside. This misalignment, often called gender dysphoria, can manifest in various ways—discomfort with one’s body, the social expectations tied to that gender, or a desire to express identity in a way that reflects how one truly feels. The decision to transition, whether through hormones, surgeries, or social changes, is often a profoundly freeing one. For many trans women, finally living in alignment with their inner self brings relief and joy.

But for others, this step may not be the endpoint. It’s crucial to understand that the transition to female, while powerful, may only reveal part of the larger truth of a person’s identity. Over time, some individuals discover that while certain aspects of femininity resonated with them, the completeness of the female identity doesn’t fully capture who they are. This is where the journey from MtF to MtM begins.

This second transition can feel bewildering, even to the person experiencing it. After investing so much emotional and physical energy into becoming who they thought they were, grappling with the idea that their gender might be something else entirely can lead to feelings of confusion, doubt, and fear. “Did I make a mistake?” they may wonder. However, this is often less about regret and more about the natural evolution of identity. Gender is not static; it can shift and adapt as one grows and uncovers more about their own truths.

The Journey Back to Masculinity

Transitioning from MtF to MtM isn’t merely “going back” to the identity one was assigned at birth. It’s important to recognize that the journey through femininity has shaped and transformed the individual. In many ways, this second transition is about redefining masculinity, integrating the lessons learned from living as female, and embracing a version of masculinity that may feel more fluid, nuanced, and less constrained by societal expectations.

For some, the journey back to masculinity may involve physically detransitioning, stopping hormone therapy, or even undergoing procedures to reverse previous surgeries. For others, it’s more of an internal shift—a change in how they relate to their gender, present themselves, or feel in their own skin. The experience of dysphoria might return but in a new form, or it might disappear altogether as they find peace in this newfound understanding of their gender.

The fear of being misunderstood or judged can weigh heavily on individuals navigating this second transition. There’s a stigma attached to detransitioning, especially in a society that still clings to binary notions of gender. It’s common to fear being seen as someone who was “wrong” about their identity or who is “confused.” However, the truth is far more complex. Gender identity, for many, is a process of discovery that can unfold over a lifetime.

Society's Role in Shaping Gender Identity

Our relationship with gender is not formed in isolation. Society’s rules, expectations, and stereotypes about what it means to be male or female are ever-present, and navigating these norms while forging one’s own path can be immensely challenging. From childhood, many of us are bombarded with rigid ideas of what boys and girls are supposed to be, which leaves little room for personal exploration. Those who do not fit neatly into these categories can experience rejection, discrimination, and confusion about where they belong.

For someone transitioning from MtF to MtM, the external pressures can be particularly disorienting. The support systems that may have been built during their first transition might not fully understand the nuances of this next step. Friends, family, and even the broader LGBTQ+ community may have difficulty understanding or accepting why someone would return to a male identity. Unfortunately, this can lead to feelings of isolation, as though the individual no longer fits in with the trans community, nor with the cisgender world.

However, it’s vital that we recognize gender for what it is: fluid, diverse, and highly individual. For some, masculinity and femininity exist simultaneously, in tandem, or in flux. For others, these experiences are more separate and distinct. No two journeys are the same, and no one’s experience of gender is more valid than another’s.

A Reflection on the Perplexity of Gender

My own experience has shown me that gender is as much about feeling as it is about labels. Growing up, I assumed gender was a box that you fit into—a predetermined role to be played. But as I’ve come to understand more about myself and the people around me, I realize gender is less like a box and more like an ocean—expansive, sometimes stormy, but always deep. It’s something you swim through, navigate, and sometimes get lost in.

The journey from MtF to MtM exemplifies this idea. It reminds us that gender is not a static destination; it’s a lifelong journey of self-discovery. We each have the right to explore, define, and redefine who we are, free from judgment or fear of being wrong. Gender, in all its complexity, is not meant to be a burden but a means of expression—a way to be more ourselves than we ever thought possible.

In a world where gender often feels binary and fixed, those who transition between and within it are the ones showing us that it’s anything but. Gender is an evolving conversation with the self, one that can change, grow, and deepen over time. And for those navigating the journey from MtF to MtM, this truth resonates profoundly: who you are is not about choosing sides, but about embracing the totality of your experience.

[astrid-beck]

I bring a certain "romance and marriage are not the ultimate endpoint/highest form of intimate relationship or even a remotely desirable outcome" energy to the shadowgast tag that boring people really don't like

[thunderc1an]

op im begging you to lore drop about the Scourge and Tigerclaw [evil!bluestar?] au you have going on i need to know if tigerclaw is good or not

Bluestar isn't evil in this au.

It's more along the lines that the events of "The Prophecy Begins" happen earlier (Brokenstar things, bringing windclan back, etc.)

Just think of it as if the protagonist of the first arc is Tiny (THEN the protagonist of arc 2, finding the clans a new home, is fireheart, and everything else from the other arcs get pushed back too)

What i want most out of this au is to see (from the perspective of Snowfoot, tiny) a complex version of Tigerclaw, how through his own grief he does the things he does.

Though Fireheart (as an apprentice) is still the character that will reveal what Tigerstar (Leader of thunderclan) has done, and Snowfoot (deputy of thunderclan) would be the one to end him.

So that being said, the whole thing about Bluestar, straying further and further from Starclan because of her own grief, causes for Thunderclan to crumble. This and her friendliness towards riverclan does cause for a lot of the cats that Tigerclaw cares for to die.

In a simple sentence Tigerclaw (later -star) is a bad cat, he does kill to get to his desired endpoint. His endpoint is "good", bringing strength and dignity to Thunderclan after Bluestar's leadership. But I also want the viewer to have their own thoughts about if he's good or not