#this is by no means a watertight argument

[snakeautistic]

Thinking about how when horrible acts are committed often our immediate response is to deny the humanity of their perpetrators. How often do you hear that someone who has done something so terrible, so vile that you could never imagine doing it yourself must be less than human?

It’s meant as a source of comfort in some ways, I think. It serves to distance yourself from even the potential to do harm. Surely, only someone who is irreconcilably different from you could do that. Surely they must have been born evil. But, as we in a way mythologize these people, we obscure a fundamental point.

All of us are capable of the worst aspects of humanity. Does that mean we would ever, in our circumstances, our lives, reasonably seek to do them? That we would even humor the idea? No. But that is not an inherent difference in you- that is a difference in context- in circumstances, in choices. I think that’s why we become fixated on the idea of labeling people around us who have done terrible things to us as irreparably broken- that to hurt is their nature as a living thing. But that’s not true. No one is inherently bad.

And that doesn’t at all take away the weight of someone’s actions. In fact, in some ways it places more burden on them. If you argue that a person is born to inflict pain, that they have no other potential- can you reasonably blame them for doing that? You can’t- it wouldn’t be their choice, they would lack any agency over their own actions. (Of course, not all harm is inflicted purposefully and maliciously- but for the sake of keeping our scope a little narrower, as broad as it already is, we are focusing on malicious harm.)

I think recognizing this humanity, even within the worst of people is incredibly important. When we demonize people, they become more representative of abstract concepts than real people. Actions are no longer seen with nuance or intent behind them- they are assumed to be the manifestation of some greater dark force- one with a satisfaction for evil. (To be super clear here- this nuance does not lessen the responsibility of whoever caused harm or its impact- it simply gives us a fuller reason of why something was enacted.)

And then we fail to see how the people around us we don’t immediately recognize as ‘monsters’ (including ourselves) can inflict harm. We say- “I know that guy, he was always nice to me, there’s no way!” We say- “those were just a few bad apples- the system itself is fine.” We say- “bad people will find ways to get their hands on weapons. It doesn’t matter what we do to regulate them- the shooters will always exist”.

[actual-changeling]

Welcome back to Alex's unhinged meta corner - although today it is less unhinged and more of a watertight analysis.

What I am about to present you is something most people have probably already noticed, but it has been three months and I still lose my mind while going through the final fifteen frame by frame (which is a normal thing normal people like us do, right? right).

You literally cannot convince me my following meta is wrong, and the only person whose criticism I will accept on this post is Michael Sheen and Michael Sheen ONLY. If you're not Michael Sheen (hi Michael Sheen who probably has a secret tumblr account) then your guess is as good as mine, though again, I think mine is solid.

So.

We all love and hate Aziraphale's "I forgive you", but what I find even more painful is the fact that before that he almost said "I love you". Then he stops himself and changes it, and the amount of micro-expressions on his face as he makes that decision is my current cause of death.

Here's the clip as evidence #1, and while it can definitely support itself, let's dive into the pain a little more, shall we?

One important thing I noticed is that Aziraphale doesn't look at Crowley while he stutters his way through his initial reaction. He blinks up at him for a few frames before averting his eyes again and only holds eye contact after the almost-confession (from here on referred to as IL-).

This is Aziraphale holding eye contact with Crowley (left) vs. him looking away (right):

The frame on the left is from the I forgive you (IFY) part of the scene, the other one from right before IL-. If we go through the above clip little by little we will find that he avoids Crowley's face the entire time and his gaze slips further and further down, which I interpret as him overthinking/trying to come up with something to respond to this entire situation.

He is overwhelmed and surprised, caught between his two main desires: Crowley and being a Good Angel.

Combing through the frames, we can actually nail down exactly when Aziraphale first makes eye contact before the IL- and when he stops. Keep the above comparison in mind! The angle is slightly different because his chin is lower and he straightens up throughout the scene.

So! This is where he starts looking at Crowley:

And this is where he stops:

Hard to see? Let's zoom in on his eyes (numbers are the file names):

Now, you might ask me "Alex, this is all fine, although a bit insane, but why is any of this important?"

Because, fellow tumblr user and good omens enthusiast, I think that looking at Crowley is what changes his mind about what to say.

He doesn't look at him -> about to confess his feelings.

He looks at him -> says the absolutely worst possible thing.

Partly to hurt him because they're both lashing out at each other during this argument, but he looks at Crowley, looks at the person that just kissed him, that told him they could have been an us, that wants him and has always wanted him, screw everyone else.

He looks at Crowley and he wants to say l love you but then what? Once he says those words, he can't leave. He just can't.

We have to remember that they have existed within a complicated dance, a game that they have been playing for centuries without ever telling each other what that game actually is, what the rules are - because they couldn't. It was based entirely on trust and knowing the other person well enough to play it safe.

Crowley just flipped the playing board. Nothing is the way it should be, he is refusing to do their dance, refusing to play. He is looking at him and daring him to stop trying to put the pieces back on the board. The only thing neither of them has done yet is actually say I love you out loud.

Saying those words would mean stepping away from the playing board and acknowledging the room they have been playing in. It would mean saying fuck you to heaven, yes, but it would also force Aziraphale to finally define himself outside of the role he has been playing for both Crowley and heaven, and he isn't ready for that yet.

Additionally, there is the fear and/or knowledge (depending on what else the Metatron might have said or done that we did not see) that heaven will retaliate against him and Crowley if he disobeys them now, and he does not want to risk that either.

All that is what, in my opinion, happens in his head when he averts his eyes and interrupts himself. I do kinda what to make a whole different post about his facial expressions leading up to the IFY, so I will end this one with one more bit of pain.

Ready?

Firstly, the face he makes when he makes his decision.

Look at the tight line of his lips, the pain etched into his face, the pure pain in his eyes.

This is the face of someone who knows exactly how badly he is going to hurt Crowley and himself. This is an apology, an I'm sorry for what I'm about to do, this hurts me as much as it hurts you. I'm sorry but I have to.

And then he winces afterwards. I don't know about you, but this is exactly the kind of face I make when I'm emotionally torturing myself with my own thoughts. For the final blow, please look at the picture very, very closely, especially the last frame, because Aziraphale isn't just sorry and he isn't just in pain.

Aziraphale is scared because he knows* that he might lose Crowley over this. He knows that saying I forgive you is (almost) unforgivable. He KNOWS.

He does it anyway because he will lose Crowley either way but he'd rather have him alive and hating him than dead.

With that I am concluding today's unhinged meta corner, thank you for your attention and you're welcome for the pain.

Also: If you want to call me a 'tin hatter' or insane or otherwise make fun of me - this is very much a girl, what were YOU doing at the devil's sacrament moment because you read my meta post all the way to the end. <3

-

*authors note: what Aziraphale thinks he knows and what is actually real is not the same thing but that's a different post

[evilscientist3]

so do you actually support ai "art" or is that part of the evil bit :| because um. yikes.

Let me preface this by saying: I think the cutting edge of AI as we know it sucks shit. ChatGPT spews worthless, insipid garbage as a rule, and frequently provides enticingly fluent and thoroughly wrong outputs whenever any objective fact comes into play. Image generators produce over-rendered, uncanny slop that often falls to pieces under the lightest scrutiny. There is little that could convince me to use any AI tool currently on the market, and I am notably more hostile to AI than many people I know in real life in this respect.

That being said, these problems are not inherent to AI. In two years, or a decade, perhaps they will be our equals in producing writing and images. I know a philosopher who is of the belief that one day, AI will simply be better than us - smarter, funnier, more likeable in conversation - I am far from convinced of this myself, but let us hope, if such a case arises, they don't get better at ratfucking and warmongering too.

Many of the inherent problems posed by AI are philosophical in nature. Would a sufficiently advanced AI be appreciably different to a conscious entity? Can their outputs be described as art? These are questions whose mere axioms could themselves be argued over in PhD theses ad infinitum. I am not particularly interested in these, for to be so on top of the myriad demands of my work would either drive me mad or kill me outright. Fortunately, their fractally debatable nature means that no watertight argument could be given to them by you, either, so we may declare ourselves in happy, clueless agreement on these topics so long as you are willing to confront their unconfrontability.

Thus, I would prefer to turn to the current material issues encountered in the creation and use of AI. These, too, are not inherent to their use, but I will provide a more careful treatment of them than a simple supposition that they will evaporate in coming years.

I would consider the principal material issues surrounding AI to lie in the replacement of human labourers and wanton generation of garbage content it facilitates, and the ethics of training it on datasets collected without contributors' consent. In the first case, it is prudent to recall the understanding of Luddites held by Marx - he says, in Ch. 15 of Das Kapital: "It took both time and experience before workers learnt to distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and therefore to transfer their attacks from the material instruments of production to the form of society which utilises those instruments." The Industrial Revolution's novel forms of production and subsequent societal consequences has mirrored the majority of advances in production since. As then, the commercial application of the new technology must be understood to be a product of capital. To resist the technology itself on these grounds is to melt an iceberg's tip, treating the vestigial symptom of a vast syndrome. The replacement of labourers is with certainty a pressing issue that warrants action, but such action must be considered and strategic, rather than a reflexive reaction to something new. As is clear in hindsight for the technology of two centuries ago, mere impedance of technological progression is not for the better.

The second case is one I find deeply alarming - the degradation of written content's reliability threatens all knowledge, extending to my field. Already, several scientific papers have drawn outrage in being seen to pass peer review despite blatant inclusion of AI outputs. I would be tempted to, as a joke to myself more than others, begin this response with "Certainly. Here is how you could respond to this question:" so as to mirror these charlatans, would it not without a doubt enrage a great many who don't know better than to fall for such a trick. This issue, however, is one I believe to be ephemeral - so pressing is it, that a response must be formulated by those who value understanding. And so are responses being formulated - major online information sources, such as Wikipedia and its sister projects, have written or are writing rules on their use. The journals will, in time, scramble to save their reputations and dignities, and do so thoroughly - academics have professional standings to lose, so keeping them from using LLMs is as simple as threatening those. Perhaps nothing will be done for your average Google search result - though this is far from certain - but it has always been the conventional wisdom that more than one site ought to be consulted in a search for information.

The third is one I am torn on. My first instinct is to condemn the training of AI on material gathered without consent. However, this becomes more and more problematic with scrutiny. Arguments against this focusing on plagiarism or direct theft are pretty much bunk - statistical models don't really work like that. Personal control of one's data, meanwhile, is a commendable right, but is difficult to ensure without merely extending the argument made by the proponents of copyright, which is widely understood to be a disastrous construct that for the most part harms small artists. In this respect, then, it falls into the larger camp of problems primarily caused by the capital wielding the technology.

Let me finish this by posing a hypothetical. Suppose AI does, as my philosopher friend believes, become smarter and more creative than us in a few years or decades; suppose in addition it may be said through whatever means to be entirely unobjectionable, ethically or otherwise. Under these circumstances, would I then go to a robot to commission art of my fursona? The answer from me is a resounding no. My reasoning is simple - it wouldn't feel right. So long as the robot remains capable of effortlessly and passionlessly producing pictures, it would feel like cheating. Rationally explaining this deserves no effort - my reasoning would be motivated by the conclusion, rather than vice versa. It is simply my personal taste not to get art I don't feel is real. It is vitally important, however, that I not mistake this feeling as evidence of any true inferiority - to suppose that effortlessness or pasionlessness invalidate art is to stray back into the field of messy philosophical questions. I am allowed, as are you, to possess personal tastes separate from the quality of things.

Summary: I don't like AI. However, most of the problems with AI which aren't "it's bad" (likely to be fixed over time) or abstract philosophical questions (too debatable to be used to make a judgement) are material issues caused by capitalism, just as communists have been saying about every similarly disruptive new technology for over a century. Other issues can likely be fixed over time, as with quality. From a non-rational standpoint, I dislike the idea of using AI even separated from current issues, but I recognise, and encourage you to recognise, that this is not evidence of an actual inherent inferiority of AI in the abstract. You are allowed to have preferences that aren't hastily rationalised over.

[loveinhawkins]

Dustin knows that as soon as you cut one monster’s head off, another is bound to grow in its place.

So when the late Jason Carver’s family and friends move out of Hawkins, he’s secretly glad about it, sure, but he’s not exactly relieved.

Rumours are a hard thing to kill.

He’s careful; he tries his hardest to be careful. On the occasional days that Eddie happens to pick him up from school, he makes sure Eddie parks down the sidewalk, so he’s out of direct view from the parking lot. In all honesty, he doesn’t think anyone would actually try to start anything; the cover story for Eddie’s innocence hadn’t been watertight, nothing ever is, but it had been enough to stop full blown accusations.

Still. Dustin starts to think that maybe monsters now come in the form of silent looks, of parents whispering as they pick up their children from school, whisking them away as if Eddie might turn them to stone with one glance.

“I’ve had whispers all my life, man,” Eddie had told him, blasé, “I’ll get over it.”

But Dustin figured he could at least spare him from hearing some of it; a little walk before catching a ride isn’t exactly a hardship.

But in all of his imagined worst-case scenarios—picturing himself having to defend Eddie from the town’s rubberneckers—Dustin doesn’t expect to be confronted in the middle of the school day.

And certainly not while he’s alone.

A junior stops him on the way to the cafeteria. Dustin racks his brain, comes up with the name Aaron, blanks on the surname; yet he’s sure that there’s no crossover with Jason and his crew.

“Henderson, right?” Aaron says with a seemingly pleasant smile.

Dustin’s hackles are up from just the way he says his name—it’s not like the way Eddie and Steve say it, rounded and soft with fondness. It’s cold, oil slick.

“Yeah,” he says shortly. He makes to step to the side; Aaron doesn’t stop him really, but his weight shifts subtly, as if to silently declare that there’s no room for argument.

“Come on, let’s take a walk.”

-

At first Dustin tries very hard to convince himself that it’s just a coincidence when Aaron leads him into the woods.

But then he sees the picnic table.

Eddie had described every interaction he’d had with Chrissy in a kind of vivid detail that bordered on desperate—almost as if by recounting it, he might find a scrap of impossible hope: that it hadn’t happened like he thought, that she might have somehow survived after all.

It’s like Dustin can see the memory of her now, can hear Eddie’s words. I noticed she was… jumpy, you know, but, Jesus, I just thought I must’ve spooked her.

“This is where he did it, right?” Aaron says. “Where it all started.”

Dustin stays very still. “I don’t know what you mean.”

“Don’t play dumb. I saw them that day, wandering off.” There’s a horrible gleam in Aaron’s eyes, and Dustin knows it’s been fuelled by the darkest of whispers. “They timed it so it looked like they went there separately, but I fucking saw them.”

“I’m not—”

“He cursed Chrissy here, didn’t he? Then he finished off what he started at his piece of shit trailer. Fucking creep.”

In his mind’s eye, there’s a flash of Eddie in Steve’s arms, something he saw unintentionally, waking in the early hours of the morning. He remembers quickly shutting his eyes again, but that hadn’t been enough to block out Eddie’s gasping, tearful breaths. I thought I could help her, Steve, I-I thought—oh, God—

“You don’t know what you’re talking about,” Dustin says flatly.

He can hear Eddie’s voice in his head. Don’t rise to it, don’t give them an inch. But that had been about teachers itching for an excuse to give someone a detention, not…

“That’s right, Henderson, walk away. You a freak like him?”

The leaves rustle as Aaron stalks forward; Dustin doesn’t look back.

There’s some kinds of people you just can’t reason with, Henderson.

“Yeah, I think you are. Did he teach you everything? Bet you loved it. Bet you begged for it. Begged him to show you how to be a fucking faggot—”

Dustin doesn’t remember actually deciding to throw a punch. It’s like the next few seconds of his life turn to static, to nothing, and suddenly he’s breathing heavily, and Aaron’s looking up at him from the ground in faint surprise.

It must not have been a good punch; there’s not a mark on Aaron’s face, and when Dustin glances down at his knuckles, he can’t see any blood on them. He probably just caught Aaron in the chest—winded him, if anything.

But he stands his ground. Tries to channel how Steve had squared up to Billy Hargrove.

“Say that again, and you’re dead.”

His heart pounds in his ears, a drumbeat of fury. He wonders if maybe a part of him has never stopped being twelve years old, has never stopped being angry when people spat poison about Will.

“No,” Aaron says, getting to his feet, “you are.”

And Dustin is shoved backwards. His ankle is still weak from that damn fall through the gate, so he goes down hard.

And as he lies there, trying to catch his breath through the flare of pain, he suddenly realises that no-one knows where he is. That he could get really, really hurt.

Aaron looms over him, saying nothing. He spits in Dustin’s face.

And then he leaves.

-

“Where were you?” Mike asks the period after lunch, passing over a cup of chocolate pudding he’d saved.

Dustin spins a tale about having lunch in the music department, waiting for a slot to become free for guitar lessons. It’s not technically a lie; he’d simply planned on doing it next week instead: just a taster session so he could tell Eddie about it, and then Eddie would bitch about promising youth getting ruined by learning “fucking godawful technique”, and then he’d teach Dustin properly.

Mike buys it, but his forehead wrinkles in concern when Dustin doesn’t touch the pudding.

Dustin bites down the stupid impulse to ask him about how it felt to jump off Sattler Quarry—because right now he thinks he’s been left dangling over the edge of a cliff.

Just waiting to fall.

-

He thinks he’s doing an okay job at hiding the persistent throb in his ankle, takes care to walk to Eddie’s van with his head up.

But then Eddie opens the door, and his first words are, “Hey, are you limping?”

Dustin just stops himself from sighing. Plan B, then.

“Had to run track at gym,” he lies easily.

“Why the hell would you do that?”

“I thought it would be fine!”

“C’mon, man, you’ve got a doctor’s note for a reason.”

Dustin does sigh this time—a harsh, frustrated sound as his ankle gives another warning twinge. He doesn’t stop himself in time, and he snaps, “God, you sound like Steve. It doesn’t suit you.”

The surprised glance Eddie gives him is awful. He’s silent for a moment, starting up the engine.

“Didn’t realise only Steve could care,” he says lightly, but Dustin can see the flicker of hurt in his eyes.

But while a part of him instantly regrets what he says, another part is relieved: he knows that, for now, Eddie won’t pry anymore, will just give him a pointed silent treatment for the rest of the ride.

Dustin tells himself that he doesn’t mind. He’d rather Eddie be hurt by his words than anyone else’s.

He can do this. He can handle this on his own.

He has to.

[catofoldstones]

j0ns@ isnt 100% to me but stans disbelieving in the ashford tourney interpretations now because it didnt fit what they wanted makes me lol now its invalid by having robert arryn when its not supposed to be a 100% recreation, harrold harryn is too much coincidence that it signals sans@'s suitors ,saying the final targaryen suitor died is coping because like Valarr Targaryen, jon also just died the difference is he'll get resurrected

my favourite excuse is "well nobody married lady ashford" well duh its a tourney,it might not even happen in a romantic light more for desperate political reasons the denial is hysterical

Hi anon,

I understand their need to constantly be “debunking” the theory because how dare Sansa have a parallel in another book and thereby be an important character in the series as a whole😤

I don’t think Robert Arryn is the chink in the armour they think he is. With all of Sansa’s previous suitors & Harry, there have been concrete plots to get her married to them. She was officially betrothed to Joffrey (the Baratheon suitor) before the Tyrells brought in Willas (the Tyrell suitor) and were actively planning to spirit her away to Highgarden right under the Lannisters’ noses, only for them to catch wind of the plan (if it can even be put that way) and forcefully get Sansa married to Tyrion (the Lannister suitor). As for Harry, Baelish’s northern plan comes into play which rests on the heels of Sansa getting married to Harry. Not to mention Hardyng is a pretty unknown House to just throw in, dontcha think?

Lysa brings up Sweetrobin in passing, with no plan or even an actual intention to marry them. This is literally never brought up again when Lysa is alive, or even after. The only one repeating any similar sentiment is Sweetrobin himself, who has a crush on Sansa but clearly doesn’t know what it means. So should we take Sweetrobin as a valid suitor? I mean, do crushes count? Because then why not include a whole legion of other Westerosi men who are interested in Sansa and make it a watertight argument. Baelish absolutely wants to marry Sansa, he even asked Cersei for Sansa’s hand in marriage, why isn’t he included? “Because…” yeah you’re there. My point is, the arguments against Baelish & SR are both strong but take a step back to what they have in common, Sansa’s story is leading somewhere else and thematically neither of them fit. One is less serious than the other & thats SR. Be fr with your SR arguments jesus.

Moreover, the Ashford theory and Sansa’s suitors don’t have to be perfect analogues of each other. Hell, we know nothing about Lady Ashford except that she’s 13 and involved in a tourney that was disrupted, and that Sansa is 13 and involved in a tourney that will be disrupted. Man, does this girl have to be named Pansa Ptark now for it to be a valid parallel? Why does George even bother naming his books, he should start calling them the war of the roses and be done with it. Why are we even reading political fiction, let’s just open today’s newspaper. Tf.

And I don’t think I can add anything to the Jon - Targaryen suitor theories that hasn’t been proposed + your points too. We consider R + L = J to be true, first and foremost. The “white guardian”, “dark hair” “the Targaryen suitor being dead” etc etc. In the same vein as the argument above, does he need to be named Jonnel/Jonos now to be taken seriously? Well, he is in another parallel but even that is “reaching” so what can I say? 🤷‍♀️ They’re not going to see what they don’t want to see, but, like you said, watching them jump through hoops and perform mental gymnastics and open a whole circus in the process is truly hilarious lol.

You do bring up an excellent argument, anon, that all of Sansa’s previous suitors have been for her claim to the North, so her marriage with Jon might also be for political reasons. However, the slight exception of Joffrey who was a King in his own right (lmao) exists; which again sort of foils Jon and his actual claim to the iron throne. So I feel that while a political marriage is totally on the cards (solves one too many problems for my liking 😤), Sansa might marry him out of love considering her theme of independence and not-marrying-for-claim. But who am I to say 🤷‍♂️

Lastly, nobody crowned Lady Ashford the queen of love and beauty so Sansa isn’t marrying anyone is sort of funny. Well, Loras gave Sansa a red rose amongst all the young maidens present there, are they a foreshadowed endgame pairing now? Also, how does one come up with Sansa is gonna end up as Lady of the Vale by marrying HH and Sansa is going to end up alone in the same breath?

[mekagojira3k]

I listened to a clip of a crazy sermon, and like...thinking back on all of the religious functions I've been to (dad was pretty committed to us going to everything....sunday school/full service/wednesday youth stuff/vacation bible school) and I feel like a lot of this aspect of faith feels like ....illiterate people larping as literate folks.

I mean this in that, you see them almost get there....as far as structuring a coherent argument, and it's not like it has to be watertight, but freshman college english paper quality. They support their claims with "evidence" but its all off. Like a kid mimicking what they see their parents doing. Taking a fisher price wrench to an actual car, turning it back and forth without making contact, without engaging with the real machine.

I'm dumb for not making this connecting until now (I'm gonna blame adhd and having 1 billion projects/interests at a given time) but its kind of funny. And this isn't just an "intellectual superiority" kind of thing because I'm an imbecile half the time. This is mostly just sort of trying to pin down a specific feeling i have when they try to piece together something (think the Monster Energy is Satanic lady vid).

[drbased]

One of the best ways to force TRAs to admit that transwomen are males, that they have been socialized as males and that they belong to the male class, is to push the concept of the "afab trans woman"

I left this ask unanswered for a while because I know exactly which user sent this and I don't really care for their arguments. But I'm going to use this an opportunity to address something that I think is really important for feminists and leftists when arguing online.

I don't really care about forcing TRAs to admit things. I'm much more interested in enriching the discourse of the choir I'm already in.

Arguments online are performative first and foremost; they're rarely if ever about trying to actively persuade the person you're talking to - they're much more about using sass and wit to try to control the conversation and make yourself look like the stronger person. Zero integrity is required to engage in an online argument - and those with ther crappier but more confident argument will always win out (plus if that argument supports the status quo and the oppressors class(es) within it, then said argument will take even less effort to convince people). Unless you're absolutely watertight in your argumentative strategy, you've basically already lost, and you've wasted your time. The ones who do decide to argue a lot end up looking vaguely irritating on your dashboard; discourse is irritating because you have to sift through a bunch of arguments you already know are wrong and bad intertwined with a bunch of arguments you already know are good and right. But the argument never seems to stop, despite how supposedly 'good' all those arguments are. The discourse goes on and on. By arguing with these people you're being baited into wasting time and energy.

I'm not here to say that nobody should say words to the opposing side, and by all means I sure can't stop you if you want to. The problem is, if the facts are on your side, the odds are stacked against you. You're fighting against mainstream status quo opinion and a collective of rhetorical tactics which are more effective than the truth and compassion will ever be. TBH I think the most effective arguer on this site is opabinia, but that's because she never wastes time actually arguing, she just sealions the other side over and over again until they give up (and, seemingly, deactivate??). But could you say she's ever actually convinced anyone, or has she just made our side go 'yassss girl!' over and over? Has she turned arguments from performing for them into arguments that are performing for us?

The Jehova's Witnesses are a cult-ish Christian denomentation infamous for knocking on people's doors and asking them if they've heard the good news; they will then attempt to convert that person to their religion. As studies have shown, this method of converting people is bad. It has such a laughably poor success rate that you'd be forgiven for thinking that conversion isn't even the point. And theorists have indeed posited that the 'point' of doostep conversion attempts is not actually to convert, but rather to strengthen the in-group through shared experiences - the members bond with each other through how much they are rejected by those outside.

Before I end this I also want to point out that trying to use the 'afab trans woman line' is weak as all hell to me. A lot of radfems seem to be under the impressionn that genderists haven't got excuses and workarounds for the most basic of arguments about sex. If these people cared about facts, then, well, we wouldn't have a genderist on our hands. You can't just 'trick them' - well, maybe you can the teenagers I suppose, but IDK I personally find arguing with teenagers online to be kinda gauche. Trans activists have their party line that gender is assigned at birth, and that's what dictates their life experiences. An 'afab trans woman' cannot exist because to them, because the whole damn point of being trans is that your gender is different from what you're assigned at birth. At best you can piss them off, get them to say hypocrisies with a straight face - but once again, that's just entertainment. Maybe it'll change their minds years later when they look back and cringe, idk. I personally think the odds are stacked against us and it's much more worthwhile to charge up our arguments for ourselves and so we're better at changing the minds of people who aren't already on the defensive.

I'm going to round this off with promoting a youtube series that every feminist and leftist needs to watch: Innuendo Studio's The Alt Right Playbook. I have referenced a couple of his videos here, specifically Control the Conversation, which I consider a must-watch for anyone frustrated with the argumentative tactics of groups like conservatives and trans activists. Now, he does lump in 'terfs' with this perception of the alt right, but that's just part of this territory (if you can handle the misogyny and bigotry of platforms like the Spectator and Daily Mail, I'm sure one little mention of terfs in a powerful leftist piece of work shouldn't be a problem); the actual content has been foundational for me in understanding how the right wing operates and understands the world. They're all short watches, and they're incredibly well-written. If you like my insight and how I write about things, well, youtube essays such as these have been formative in how I analyse and write about the world. A strong broad understanding of how people and the world operates in general makes you less susceptible for falling for bad arguments and rhetoric and makes you a stronger, more coherent thinker, speaker and writer.

[chanoyu-to-wa]

The Chanoyu Hyaku-shu [茶湯百首], Part II:  Poem 34.

〽 Toko-ue ni kago-hanaire wo oku-toki ha          usu-ita nado ha shikanu-mono nari

    [床上に籠花入を置く時は          薄板などは敷かぬ物也].

    “When a basket flower-container is placed in the toko, things like an usu-ita should not be placed underneath [the basket].”

    Kago-hanaire [籠花入] are baskets (usually appropriated from some every-day use¹) that are used as hanaire.  Because the trend of having the hanaire be significantly larger in volume than the flowers that would be arranged in it had already become part of the aesthetic of chanoyu, baskets were extremely attractive, since they increased the size of the hanaire while not its actual, physical weight (as, for example, when a similarly large container was made of bamboo or ceramic) -- important when the hanaire was going to be hung up on the wall.

     While it is generally said today that baskets should only be used during the summer months, Rikyū and his contemporaries used them all year round -- one of Rikyū‘s favorite arrangements being to place a camellia bud and its leaves in his Katsura-kawa-kago [桂川籠] (this basket is shown above).

    Usu-ita nado ha shikanu-mono nari [薄板などは敷かぬ物なり]:  in addition to the usu-ita [薄板]², other bases were also used, such as the ka-dai [花臺]; shikanu-mono [敷かぬ物] means something that should not be placed underneath (another object -- such as a kago-hanaire). 

    Rikyū’s kara-ki ka-dai [唐木花臺], which he used as a base for the hanaire in his Mozuno ko-yashiki [百舌鳥野小屋式]³, is shown below.

     This ka-dai, which is still preserved by the Sen family, measures 1-shaku 8-sun by 1-shaku 6-bu, and stands 2-sun 4-bu high.

    Returning to the poem, the argument being made here is said to have been first voiced by Furuta Sōshitsu (which suggests that this poem could not have been written by Jōō, since Oribe was just 11 years old when Jōō died).

    Rikyū’s ahiru-kago [アヒル籠 = 家鴨籠] is shown above.  Though this container is quite large (it is large enough to hold a live duck or chicken, which is the purpose for which it was made), and was usually used as an oki-kago [置き籠] (a basket that was placed on the floor of the toko), on at least one occasion, when the chabana was created by Hideyoshi, Rikyū is known to have inserted a metal hook into the back side, and lifted even this large basket up onto the wall on occasion.

    Since baskets of the types commonly used as hanaire are not watertight, a second hanaire (traditionally a bamboo tube akin to a squat oki-zutsu [置き筒]⁴) must be placed inside to contain the water.  Because the bottom of the basket⁵ is, therefore, between that container and the tatami, the basket itself lifts the container off of the floor, making a second base (such as an usu-ita [薄板]) redundant.

    Because Suzuki Kei-ichi did not differentiate between the two earliest versions of the Chanoyu hyaku-shu [茶湯百首] (Jōō’s Matsu-ya manuscript, and Rikyū’s 1580 copy of the collection) except when one of them differed from the other, he cannot be used to verify whether a version of this poem was actually found in the Matsu-ya manuscript.  As the teaching incorporated in this poem is said to have been first articulated by Furuta Sōshitsu, then it seems more likely that the poem was actually added to the collection by Rikyū, in or prior to 1580, in the form quoted by Suzuki.  This early version is found in the Sen no Rikyū zen-shu [千利休全集], as well as in the Sen family collection preserved by Katagiri Sadamasa:

〽 toko ni mata kago-hanaire ni hana ikeba⁶          usu-ita nado ha shikanu-mono nari

    [床にまた籠花入にはな生けば          うす板などはしかぬものなり].

    “And again, when the flowers are arranged in a basket flower-container in the toko, an usu-ita, or things of that sort, should not be placed underneath.”

    The change in wording does not really have any impact on the actual meaning of this poem.

_________________________

¹The Arima-kago [有間籠] and nata-kago [鉈籠] are two more examples of this kind of behavior.

    Rikyū discovered the Arima-kago (which was made to be used as a simple andon, numbers of which were placed along the stone paths that lead from the sleeping rooms -- built separately like chashitsu -- to the baths at the Arima onsen) during his stay at the spa as part of Hideyoshi’s entourage on one of the nine occasions when the Taikō [太閤] visited the famous hot spring.

    The nata-kago was used by the woodcutters as a sheath for the machete (nata [鉈]) that they used when cutting brushwood.

    As for the kago-hanaire shown in the body of the translation, the Katsura-kawa-kago [桂川籠] was originally made as a fisherman’s creel (used by the ayu [鮎] fishermen working on the Katsura river southwest of Kyōto), while the ahiru-kago [家鴨籠] was a basket made to restrain live fowl (ahiru [家鴨籠] means the domesticated duck) in the marketplace (the two ears allowed a loose wicker lid to be tied down to keep the duck or chicken inside).

    These are the four baskets that are historically associated with Rikyū, and which are documented to have been used by him as the hanaire during his own chakai.

²In the beginning, the usu-ita [薄板] was a specific object -- a board painted with shin-nuri, measuring 1-shaku 3-sun 2-bu by 9-sun 2-bu, with a notched edge, that was a sort of flattened version of the Gassan-nagabon.  This board was created by Jōō specifically as a replacement for the Gassan-nagabon (because continued use of this tray as a base for Jōō‘s bronze hanaire was beginning to cause damage to the face of the tray).

    Imai Sōkyū and his machi-shū followers added other boards, including a version of a round board that originally had been made (by Jōō) -- as a base for a kōro that was lifted into the toko* after mon-kō [聞香] during a chakai.  This board was originally 6-bu thick (the same as the shiki-ita for a furo, since the purpose was the same); but the machi-shū made it much thinner, like the other usu-ita, and the name was changed from maru-kō-dai [丸香臺] (round base for an incense burner) to maru-hamaguri-ba [丸蛤端] (round board with an edge resembling the way clam shells join). ___________ *Appreciating high-quality kyara [伽羅] is a time-consuming process, since the idea is not only to smell its fragrance, but take note of the process as the fragrance continues to evolve over time.  Originally a group of 10 people would participate in the Shino family’s kō-kai [香會], so the idea of passing the incense burner around the room three times was based on this number of guests.  In the tea room, Jōō reduced the number to five or six, and eventually this became two or three in the really small rooms.

    When three or four people pass the censer around three times, while the aroma does certainly evolve, the piece of kyara will be far from exhausted when this exercise is finished.  Thus -- because the more advanced stages are considered the most wonderful (as the more common resins burn away) -- it became customary for the kōro to be lifted up into the toko at the end, and left there until the end of the shoza.  The maru-kō-dai was prepared for this purpose.

³The Mozuno ko-yashiki did not have a tokonoma.  Rather, it had an alcove or recess at the far end that was floored with ordinary floor boards (rather than a single beautiful piece of wood) at the same level as the mats.

    Placing the hanaire directly on this floor would have lowered the flowers too much, so Rikyū placed an imported Chinese ka-dai [花臺] (a low platform on which rikka [立華] flower arrangements were traditionally displayed in the shoin) on the floor.  This ka-dai elevated the hanaire to the same height as if it were resting on an usu-ita on the floor of an ordinary tokonoma.

    It seems that Rikyū may have left his kara-ki ka-dai in place even when there was nothing displayed on top of it (the way the toko is always present, even when it is empty except for the kakemono, or when the chabana is hanging on the wall), since the ka-dai was taking the place of the floor of the toko.

    This idea of placing a ka-dai on the floor of a room to simulate a toko in a room that does not have one is said to have been first proposed by Furuta Sōshitsu.  While derived from the old idea of placing an ore-ashi-joku [折足卓] (oshi-ita [押板]) on the floor in such a room that was popular during the first half of the sixteenth century, the ka-dai, being smaller, gave the guests more room to move about unimpeded, while still providing a visual cue that warned them away from too close of contact with the chabana, or the scroll hanging on the wall behind it.  In recognition of this history, this kind of arrangement has been known as an Oribe toko [織部床] since the early Edo period.

⁴Originally it was made in the same way, but over time this container was modified (so it would not seem that the host had simply taken another hanaire and placed that inside the basket) -- first, by shaving off the outer skin of the bamboo tube; and later, in the interests of making it waterproof, painting or rubbing the tube, inside and out, with lacquer.

⁵In fact, most baskets that were made as hanaire have feet of some sort or another that further lift the bottom of the basket away from direct contact with the mat that covers the floor of the toko, thus insuring that, even if the basket is damp, it will not stain the mat.

⁶Sekishū’s version ends the kami-no-ku [上の句] with the words hana ikewa [花いけわ].  Since ikewa is not a word, this was probably a miswriting of hana ike ha [花いけは = 花生けは], which is an alternate written form of hana ikeba [花生けば]*, representing the conditional form of the verb ikeru [生ける].  Ikeru means to keep (flowers) alive (by placing their cut stems in water), and this was the original verb used to mean “arranging flowers.”

    Only after the different arts came to be separated into categories (that were encouraged to be hostile to each other in order to keep their teachings “secret”) during the Edo period did the tea schools stop using this verb (because it had become the exclusive “property” of the ikebana [生け花] schools). ___________ *Prior to the seventeenth century, the writing of daku-ten [濁点] -- the pair of little dots that, for example, turn ha [は] into ba [ば] -- seems to have been optional except when necessary to distinguish the needed form from some other plausible possibility.  This is logical in handwritten documents, since the insertion of the daku-ten will necessitate an interruption of the flow of the brush from this kana to the next word.

==============================================

◎ If these translations are valuable to you, please consider donating to support this work.  Donations from the readers are the only source of income for the translator.  Please use the following link:

https://PayPal.Me/chanoyutowa

[muskaandelvi]

Litigation and Dispute Resolution: The Legal Expertise of Corporate Lawyers in Mumbai

In the bustling business hub of Mumbai, corporations often find themselves navigating complex legal landscapes fraught with disputes and challenges. From contract disagreements to regulatory compliance issues, the need for skilled legal guidance is paramount to ensure smooth operations and protect corporate interests. This is where corporate lawyers in Mumbai come into play, leveraging their legal expertise to adeptly handle litigation and facilitate dispute resolution for their clients. In this article, we'll delve into the realm of litigation and dispute resolution, highlighting the indispensable role of corporate lawyers in Mumbai.

Expertise in Corporate Law:

Corporate lawyers in Mumbai possess a deep understanding of corporate law, including regulations, compliance requirements, and contractual obligations. This expertise equips them with the knowledge and insight necessary to navigate the intricacies of corporate litigation and dispute resolution. Whether it's interpreting complex legal documents, advising on regulatory matters, or representing clients in court, corporate lawyers leverage their specialized knowledge to provide effective legal solutions tailored to the needs of their corporate clients.

Strategic Guidance and Counsel:

One of the primary roles of corporate lawyers in Mumbai is to provide strategic guidance and counsel to businesses facing legal disputes. They assess the legal merits of each case, evaluate potential risks and liabilities, and develop comprehensive strategies to achieve favorable outcomes for their clients. Whether it involves negotiation, mediation, or litigation, corporate lawyers leverage their expertise to devise the most effective course of action to resolve disputes and protect their clients' interests.

Dispute Prevention and Risk Management:

Prevention is often better than cure, and corporate lawyers in Mumbai understand the importance of proactive dispute prevention and risk management. They work closely with corporate clients to identify potential legal risks and implement strategies to mitigate them before they escalate into disputes. This may involve drafting watertight contracts, conducting compliance audits, or providing training on legal best practices. By taking a proactive approach to risk management, corporate lawyers help their clients avoid costly litigation and safeguard their business interests.

Skilled Advocacy in Litigation:

When disputes do arise, corporate lawyers in Mumbai are prepared to advocate zealously on behalf of their clients in court. They possess strong advocacy skills and are adept at presenting persuasive arguments before judges and juries. Whether it's representing clients in commercial disputes, employment litigation, or regulatory proceedings, corporate lawyers leverage their courtroom experience and legal acumen to secure favorable outcomes for their clients.

Efficient Dispute Resolution Mechanisms:

In addition to traditional litigation, corporate lawyers in Mumbai are well-versed in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration and mediation. These methods offer a more efficient and cost-effective means of resolving disputes outside of the courtroom. Corporate lawyers leverage their negotiation skills and expertise in alternative dispute resolution to help clients reach mutually acceptable settlements and avoid the time and expense associated with protracted litigation.

In conclusion, corporate lawyers in Mumbai play a vital role in navigating the complexities of litigation and dispute resolution for businesses operating in the dynamic environment of the city. With their expertise in corporate law, strategic counsel, proactive risk management, skilled advocacy, and proficiency in alternative dispute resolution, corporate lawyers are indispensable allies for corporations seeking to protect their interests and achieve favorable outcomes in legal disputes.

[mariacallous]

Meduza: Why the West should (or maybe shouldn’t) seize all those frozen Russian sovereign assets

In mid-December 2023, The Financial Times reported that the U.S. government had “privately taken a more assertive stance in recent weeks” on backing the confiscation of roughly $300 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets to provide an alternative funding stream for Kyiv. The news comes amid faltering efforts in Europe and Washington to approve the budgetary allocations needed to sustain aid for Ukraine. Kyiv’s most ardent supporters in the West say the seizure of the immobilized Russian state assets is long overdue. In fact, that the seizure hasn’t happened already is both alarming and confounding to many people. For a better grasp of the arguments for and against expropriating the Russian state of such vast wealth, Meduza summarizes a handful of recent opinion essays on the subject (and thanks Maximilian Hess for his insights on this subject).

Three problems with taking Russia’s money

In an op-ed published on January 4 in The Financial Times, Cornell University Assistant Professor of History Nicholas Mulder outlines three problems with seizing Russia’s frozen sovereign assets in the West:

It would exert “no meaningful additional economic pressure” on Moscow.

It is not Western states’ prerogative and would risk directly drawing them into the war.

It would constitute a “destabilizing precedent” that would alienate non-Western states and “dismantle a building block” of the current world order.

Mulder also says the asset seizure is “economically unnecessary,” arguing that the transatlantic economy can “easily sustain” its annual $100-billion aid to Ukraine (though he doesn’t explain how to overcome the current political difficulties of allocating these resources).

Protections for state assets rely on reciprocity. that Moscow has abandoned

Back on July 27, 2023, three experts wrote an article challenging The Economist’s reluctance to endorse the seizure of Russia’s frozen state assets. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, historian Philip Zelikow, and former World Bank President Robert Zoellick argued that transferring frozen Russian assets into escrow to compensate Kyiv would mirror actions against Iraqi state assets in 1992 to compensate Kuwait. This move, the authors say, “poses no added risk to the stability of reserve currencies” and would induce Russia to compensate Ukraine. 

Summers, Zelikow, and Zoellick say such countermeasures “have long been recognized as extra-judicial state measures of self-help” while also arguing that findings by the International Court of Justice and the U.N. General Assembly expand the legal case for seizing Russia’s state assets. They insist that state assets, in contrast to private assets, “are protected from other sovereigns only by customary obligations of reciprocal regard,” which means due process is unnecessary except in moves against oligarchs. Meanwhile, Russia has demonstrated no reciprocity here, seizing Western companies by presidential decree.

‘That’s what dictatorships do’

The editorial from The Economist on July 20, 2023, that prompted the response from Summers, Zelikow, and Zoellick says the legal case isn’t yet solid enough to justify seizing Russia’s state assets, which the magazine says are protected “under international law, and typically under domestic law, too” — not merely by “customary obligations” of reciprocity. The West could simply “grab” everything, “but that is what dictatorships do.” Before a “watertight case” with help from the U.N. General Assembly and ICJ is ready, the West should settle for seizing the income generated by Russian assets — a meager $3 billion annually, but “well worth having” in perpetuity.

Reparations are normal and time-honored

Writing in The Financial Times on January 2, economic historian and sovereign debt expert Simon Hinrichsen argues that “war reparations are common in peace settlements.” Haiti, Germany, France, and Finland have paid significant damages in the last two centuries, he notes, and the U.S. used Japanese and German frozen assets to settle WWII claims and seized Iraqi assets in 1991 and 2003. 

However, a peace settlement (even an apology) is “unrealistic” with Russia, “which makes confiscation a good solution,” says Hinrichsen. Reparations are an established norm under customary international law as old as 241 B.C., he argues, and even China has no reason to fear for the safety of its reserves held in euros and dollars, so long as it doesn’t “illegally invade other countries.” 

Ukraine is running out of time, and the West has nothing to lose

On December 13, 2023, scholar and former diplomat Nigel Gould-Davies argued in The Moscow Times that Ukraine can’t wait for compensation from Russia until after the war, as the G7 currently envisages. Moscow will never voluntarily agree to reparations and has no incentive to help rebuild Ukraine, says Gould-Davies. He endorses the legal arguments from Summers, Zelikow, and Zoellick in The Economist, writing that “an asset seizure can be a proportionate countermeasure to a grave breach of international norms” despite the sovereign immunity enjoyed by state assets. 

Gould-Davies rejects the case against seizing the frozen Russian Central Bank reserves (believed to be worth more than $300 billion), arguing that a coordinated takeover of Russian assets would preserve Western currencies “as a store of value,” set no legal precedent against private assets, and not deter other states from depositing their reserves in Western banking systems any more than the “far more significant precedent” of immobilizing Russian assets at the start of the war. Not seizing Russia’s frozen assets “risks a grand strategic failure” and misses an opportunity to send “a powerful signal of Western resolve to the Kremlin.”

[perpetual-fool]

Amoral

I think I can stop feeling sorry about everything, although it hinges on the idea that morality isn't real.

How it started; there's this particular kind of reasoning. In abstract, it's like "Whatever I think must be true, because [bullshit]". And in practice it's like, there's a thing someone wants you to do, and you don't want to do it because it's horrible for you. So you say "I don't wanna do it, it's horrible", and they reply "Oh it's not that bad, you're just being lazy", or "It's only bad because you don't do it enough, and you just need to do it more". But then you do it and it's as horrible as you thought, but then when you tell that to the other person they say something like "Well, you're doing it though, so clearly it isn't that bad". I think the word for this is 'sophistry'.

And I don't think they're trying to pull a trick, I think this is how they actually think. That would explain a lot of the bizarre behavior I've seen, such as the "people have been doing [thing] for [a long time]" argument (which doesn't actually address whatever the issue was). It's invalid, clearly; there's no way to arrive at any conclusion other than the one they've already decided on. But I can't just reject this out of hand, because this is how I was taught to think. The voice in my head has an endless stream of excuses as to why everything I do is WRONG and EVIL, and I need an answer. I was tempted to just give up, since there's nothing I could argue against; it's watertight in its own twisted way. But I have changed how I feel about things before. I've been able to quell the negative thoughts when I found I was factually, objectively correct about something. I can't do the same with 'evil' since that's subjective. But I can prove (theoretically) that I don't have enough information to know that I'm evil. The claims are always missing a premise, or argument, or conclusion, or definition, something. The claims are null. And that has to be my 'out'.

Then, I was considering what 'right' and 'wrong' would be on my own terms. There's nothing that could be underpinning that other than what someone does or does not want. (I'm not going to defend that because it's a Russell's teapot situation, if you disagree then show me otherwise.) Which means, when someone says something is right/wrong/[subjective statement], they are trying to overwrite your values with theirs. And that means that morality as a concept is an attempt to overwrite other's wants by pretending certain values are objectively correct.

So instead, I should have experiences, see how I feel about them, then act accordingly. That's new to me. And that might be one of the reasons this has been so hard; I've been looking for something familiar, like I'll recognize it when I figure things out. But this is alien. And it's real hard not to fall back into the habit of trying to figure out what I'm supposed to think and feel. For now, when that happens, my answers are: "I don't actually know that I'm bad/wrong", "When people just make claims without providing examples, they're trying to overwrite", and "What do I want?"

Lastly, I'm torn about this. These sorts of explanations, like "morality isn't real", are what I would have needed to understand and connect. I'm probably going to reach similar conclusions about friendship, relationships, music as people pretend to understand it. Even just people's personal thoughts and feelings and quirks, I've been on the 'what do you mean by..' merry-go-round enough times to know people would never genuinely explain anything. I wanted to be a part of that world, not debunk it.

I'm not sure I like who I am. I feel like I'm being heartless about everything. There's no magic in the world. I want to care, but I just find things irritating. I can only keep going, I guess.

[pazodetrasalba]

WEIRDer

Dear Caroline:

I just finished today Henrich's book (it was my pick for this month's recommendations of yours, although I had already started it in March). It was a really excellent piece, extremely interesting and one that has done much to help me fight my prejudice against the social sciences.

That negative bias was rooted on both of the places I come from: the first is the Humanities, where the main take I got was that, academically, anything can be defended that suits your views with no need for evidence -just some fancy rhetorical skills and bibliography. Later I would fall in love with Mathematics (and some flavors of Theoretical Physics), and the take there was that these were the only disciplines with a genuine claim to truth and scientific status. The realms in the middle -all the more the closer they were to the social sphere- were suspect of just being the same as the Humanities but with a fake veneer of statistical glamour and with as much predictive power as astrology. Admittedly, this was also fueled by an ideological distrust of Economics as 'the falsifications of the bourgeoisie to justify exploitation and ignoring the (Marxist) truth', and a personal dislike and skepticism of Psychoanalysis.

This book actually manages to shoo away a lot of my preconceptions: even though the initial thesis that gets the thesis running -the outrageous importance and significance of the Medieval Church's marriage policies- felt reductionistic, all through these pages I can see a quite watertight logical argument developing, and one that is supported on a ton of tests and studies in many different countries, checking for confounders, et caetera.

I am aware that you also very much liked this book, as shown by this post and your mention of it in the second FTX podcast. In case you want to refresh it, I have taken some notes of every chapter which you can consult here. The docs is rather cumbersome, though (jottings for other books appear, and there's a separation by months and days, which means you have to go further down for the older chapters), so I have started to post the notes in a substack, 2 chapters per entry.

That smug superiority with which you finish the review does require some caveats, though, as you well know from reading the book; after all, we only landed on our WEIRD psychology by accident, and there's no guarantee that cultural evolution will continue taking us down good rabbit holes in the future. Also, Protestantism, the 'weirdest religion' goes hand in hand with a higher rate of suicide -but given your Catholic background, this shouldn't worry one anyway.

Quote:

I will be quoting myself, not out of some misguided sense of self-importance or wisdom, but just because I think the words I employ in the review of the book are apt:

This is a really outstanding book that I recommend to everyone, and which has reconciled me somewhat with the social sciences.

Me

[phoenixyfriend]

I mean, not really. The Vizsla stole it. Tarre left it to the Jedi, and his clan broke in to steal it against his wishes (well, it was actually a full sacking of the Jedi Temple in the fall of the Republic; the darksaber was one of many treasures they took).

Whether the artifact itself is multicultural doesn't actually meant the Mandalorians have a right to it, because they stole it. I can't say that we have it explicitly stated that Tarre said "yes, this specific artifact is for the Jedi," but I don't think "I stole it while ransacking your holy place, so it's mine" is necessarily a watertight argument for shared custody of an artifact that is specific to the Jedi like that.

I'm literally on my knees, begging and sobbing for the Mandalorians to have a normal fucking government.

[youlackconviction]

*exaggerated sigh* here’s a link to the rest of the post, do what you want with it (they weren’t kidding when they warned it was LONG, and no i didn’t read it all)

the only reason i’m posting about this is because of one remark they made:

and honestly?

i’m just so... absolutely sick to death and beyond of people who DON’T share my views on something, telling me WHY I DO.

i don’t try to tell these people why they LIKE the series, or LIKE sylvie, or LIKE her with LOKI. so why the hell do they insist on trying to lay my thoughts out for me - when so many of the ones who think like i do about it have gone to such exhaustive lengths to explain it, very carefully.

1) NO, i don’t give a fuck about fictional “self”cest. that’s literally a fantasy concept that cannot exist in our universe. so why would it concern me in the slightest if someone wrote a made up story where that impossible event takes place? i literally don’t give a shit about that fandom trope as a storyline -

EXCEPT where it is used to criticise gender diverse people with the bizarre and harmful claim that "fucking themselves” is the reason a person wishes to depart from their assigned birth gender. that dehumanises and fetishises trans and fluid people.

the show drifted a little close to that accusation with mobius screaming at LOKI that he was an “incredible seismic narcissist” for “falling for himself”. even though the show was also super clear that she wasn’t LOKI, she was nothing like him, she was amazing and he was shit actually so how could it be self-love? except somehow it teaches him to love himself? um... kissing yourself is not what self-love means, showrunners. fucking hell.

2) NO, i also don’t give a fuck about lokius. can these people even imagine confronting an IRL person who admits to disliking a specific woman, and presenting this argument to them? “you only hate her because you wish her boyfriend was fucking a man instead of her!” and actually, i ALSO can’t stand mobius, because of the abusive way he treated LOKI. mobius is nowhere near good enough for him, and i absolutely don’t ship them either.

what’s fascinating to me is that they never quote our actual most common arguments against the sylki ship and then attempt to dismantle them or show them to be on false ground. is it because they simply can’t? that the arguments are so reasonable and watertight, that to argue against them would make them look unbalanced, misinformed, and creepy? i don’t know, but until i see it happen, i might as well assume that.

in bullet point form, my own reasons for disliking sylvie:

she’s rude, obnoxious, and aggressive, all the time

she has no personality, just a set of bullying tropes

she never misses an opportunity to belittle or mock LOKI

she doesn’t support him, build him up

she isn’t kind to him, shows no empathy

she’s verbally abusive and physically abusive

she thinks that trauma is an olympic event that she won

she’s emotionally manipulative

she’s ungrateful and selfish

she doesn’t listen, just insists she knows best

she’s one-dimensional and poorly written

the weak plot framing sets her up to be admired but it just backfires

the writers nuked LOKI to make her look better

her actor comes across as too arrogant and dismissive of tom

her acting itself is incredibly average and inconsistent

there are more... *gestures at my entire blog* in there somewhere lol. anyhow... yeh. that. and i’m not even gonna insist that series fans DNI cos guess what, i don’t care if you reblog this and try to argue with it. be my guest, just don’t get mad if i reply to your arguments with my own.

[myfeetkeepdancing]

"You're going with it?"

"Yeah… Yeah, I do." Tom giggled charmingly. "I like it." Checking out his outfit. Once again, no pants and white socks. Topped off with this fashionable black suit. "Keeps my temperature just about right." Trying to justify his pantless outfit while pushing the last folds out. "Warm suit, cool legs. It's just… right." He smiles fondly, enjoying his decision.

"I clearly remember from last time you were all hot and bothered at the end." Shifting in your seat. "And that only in a space of… thirty to forty seconds." His mouth gasped open as if this revelation was utterly based on lies. "It showed. Big time."

"It wasn't that bad!"

"Well, a face as red as a tomato, I sure won't forget."

"What do you think?!" He stands up, approaching you, leaning in for that sweet kiss. "I had you-…"

"Careful, darling." You interrupt and flinch back on purpose, Tom hovering inches away from your lips. Holding the pitcher of water in between the two of you. "Don't wanna spill this-...." You grin. "All over those pretty legs... and black boxer shorts." Stealing a quick kiss on his lips. "Wouldn't want you showing on camera covered in wet spots."

"Then you better hold on tight." He jests and pushes on. Pressing his lips onto yours with more force than usual. His hands grabbing the backrest of your chair. Turning his kiss more violent and heavy. You feel like he'd push you off the chair with this intensity. While you fought to stay balanced. Both hands on the pitcher. Careful not to spill anything.

"I had you…" He continued, despite having his lips occupied with yours. "-you… watching me... teasing me..." Pushing you furthermore onto the chair. It sat so uncomfortable, but now even more. Finding your balance. While also trying to listen to Tom. And that kiss, so passionate and fierce, that even breathing became a task worthy of your attention. Each word he spoke, he'd give you a breather, pulling back. Utter a few well-placed words. You were literally hanging onto his lips. "Darling, you're more… than a pretty distraction.

"You know what they say." You mumble in the kiss. Noses nuzzled together. As he slowed down, finally allowing you to speak. His smile radiating against yours. "Right...?"

"It's about my legs." He says, taking back. Giving you a moment of respite. "Or my crotch?" Staring at you with squinted eyes. "Which one is it?" He keeps going. "You think I should put some pants on...?" He looked to the side, struck by indifference. "Is it fashion, though?" You wonder for a moment if you let him ramble. What path this would lead.

"Joe Russo-…" You whisper, grabbing his attention immediately. "-has better thighs than you." Biting your lower lip, trying hard to contain your laughter.

"For real?" He pulls back just as you're going in for the second round of kisses. "Are you joking?" Trying to act as if he feels offended. "It's about the pitcher…" Crossing his arms. "Isn't it?" Waiting for your reaction. "Am I right?"

"I had no hand in this, Tom." Shrugging your shoulders. "Your thighs are trending, and the people have spoken. It's universally agreed upon that Joe has better thighs than you."

"I can't…. I can't believe it." Tom's expression was priceless. His expression switched from dumbstruck to disbelief, to stunned and back again. All in a matter of seconds. Staring off to the side. Eyes glazing over for a moment. "Guess I'll… I'll wear pants then..." Sounding slightly disappointed.

"Though, I can say I had a hand on this." You chuckle, patting the bare naked skin of his thigh. Just as he was about to head for his pants. Which he had found in the end. Tom being chaos incarnate himself, always loses things. Even if he packed it himself.

"And you liked it." He smiled with this smug expression. Tom being more than pleased with himself being able to find a victory in this derailed conversation. Slipping on his tailored pants, all black, and matching.

"True. But I never had Joe's… so..." You taunt, eyeing the entirety of the suit. "Difficult one."

"You're unbearable today." Leaning in for a kiss as the call came in.

"Handsome." You add on. "Unbearably handsome." Fighting to keep the kiss going with all the giggles and laughter in between.

"Don't go stealing my title, love."

"Give your waterboy some credit."

"Don't... don't say that." He pouts his lips. "Because I had a little argument-"

"Fallout, you mean." Tom averted his gaze as he knew very well it was his fault. His temper did play a hefty part in it. He sure wasn't proud of it. Especially since one of his brothers was on the receiving end. "You and your tempers." You shake your head like a judgmental parent. "Now you have to deal with me again."

"Thank you for doing this." Trying to brush away his feelings of guilt. Charging in for a simple exchange of kisses again.

"You told me to."

"I didn't say that!" He smiled. "At least… not in those words."

"I could have been hitting the bar by now."

"I know… Don't make me feel all guilty, love. What is it you want?" Slowly peeling himself off of you. Feeling the heat of the call still ringing behind him. "Another deal?" Nonetheless, kissing you back. "Just like last time..."

"You know what I want.” You moan into the kiss. Not many more words needed to spilled about it. The though alone made Tom’s lips shudder against yours. You can’t help but grin. “How about some credit, Tom." You mumble after his departing lips. "Credit where credit is due." Taking him by surprise.

"Shit…" Tom cursed while looking back at his laptop, giggling as his thoughts were elsewhere occupied. The call went unanswered, turning everything quiet again. Except for both of your racing heart. "Probably Jimmy's assistant."

"Tommy…" You try to catch his attention again, with your hand on his cheek. Pulling his eyes and lips back to you. "You heard me."

"Yeah, Yeah." He giggled while his smile grew in size. "I heard you." The way he averted his gaze from yours sure told you he was trying to think a way out of it. "I'll think about it." Pecking a quick kiss to your forehead. "I will."

"Say it, Tom." You urge on. "Or I undress right here, right now..."

"Usually, I'd help you." He smirked with this expression of pure mischief. "But now. Please don't. Not now."

"Please, do remind me."

"You know you're more than a pretty distraction." He giggled, taking your cheeks in his hands. Feeling all warm and soft. Just like his lips. Welcoming and soothing to the touch.

"Time to choose." The second call came. Making Tom veer back up. "If you're not going to say it… then I at least want you to show it."

Tom shook his head, smile stretching. "I'll say it again..." His hand hovered across the pad of his laptop. "You're-"

"Just pick up, Tom." You break him off mid-sentence. "And keep that temper of yours in check. Jimmy Fallon is waiting." Prodding him into his side just as he was about to answer. "And you fix this with Harry!" Going from prodding to tickling. The other hand unable to keep the pitcher leveled, spilling the water on you.

Tom's eyes widened seeing you rise from the chair, ditching the pitcher on the table beside you. Immediately lifting his finger from the pad. Freezing on the spot.

"Promise me, Tom…" Hooking your finger in the band of his pants. Pulling him flat against you. His fingers slipping between your pants, feeling your hips and hovering your lips inches apart from each other. Both sucking a nervous breath.

"I… I have to take this call." He stammered, sucking on his lips. Tom's eyes always darted up and down, taking you in, mentally undressing you. While his fingers caress and feel the curves of your body.

"Tom…" Kissing him slow and passionate. Letting your fingers find the buttons of his pants. "Apologize to Harry..." And he lets you. Loosening the belt, feeling the tension of the fabric loosen. Hooking your fingers in, careful not to bring his shorts with. And slowly start pulling them down.

"I will..." He whispered, watching you discarding his pants before leading you back to the chair. You were so caught up in each other. If there weren't a call still going in the background, there for sure had happened something way more exciting. Almost missing the ongoing call. "I promise. I will…" Kissing you a final time. "You bastard..." He smirked. "I'll get you."

"I'm sure you will." Watching him recover and get back over his laptop. "I'm sure…" Taking in the new pantless Tom. "So, no deal this time around?"

"You drive me crazy!" The call still going. Tom starting to panic slightly.

"I know." You smile. "And you know I can still undress here?"

"Don't!" He shot back. "This interview is way too long for that."

"Is that Rolex watertight by the way?"

He sneaked a glance at his watch as if he was going to read the number right of the surface. "Yeah, I believe it's up to-..." He looked up at you, eyes widened and a look of terror followed by a smile of mischief. "No (Y/N)..." He started shaking his head. "No-No-No! No! Don't you th-... Don't!" Holding out a hand towards you. "I got plenty more shots with this suit."

"Credit where credit is due, Tom. Or… you show your legs. Full into frame." Slowly swirling the water in the pitcher as a way of threatening him. "Proof your thighs are superior to Joe's."

"So… you... do think they're superior?" A smug little smile spreading across his face as he sits himself in front of the laptop. "Just admit it." Rising back to his feet again. "I mean..." Taking a step back and planting his feet on the chair. Showing the beautiful shape of his leg. "-look at it."

"God, Tom… If you keep going like this, you're not going to make it to this interview. I swear..." Feeling the rush of heat shooting through. Throwing some water across your face from the pitcher. Tom looking all pleased with himself. "Now shield your crotch-..." Giving him a wink. "...-and don't forget to flex those muscles. Make me proud."

[checkmatein3moves]

Maybeee 139. “Stop staring.” - “I’m not.” - “Oh, sure you aren’t.” for Ludo?

“Stop staring.”

“You’re not getting me into one of your fancy parties. I’ve seen that movie. They’re gonna lock the doors, have a servant hand me a hatchet and tell me I have five minutes to find a way out before they start hunting me for sport. No way, not a chance.” Ludo only pauses cleaning out his new freezer to send you a side-eye from beneath a thick brow. He has a vivid imagination.

But so do you. And to your benefit — a grimy alleyway with an audience of half the rat population in Ophelia isn’t the most romantic of settings, even if Ludo insists that it’s ‘actually on the cleaner side of filthy, as far as alleyways go.’ The backdrop doesn’t matter when your main focus is on the way his biceps attempt to escape his tight cotton shirt with every moment, biceps that make you understand the meaning of weightlessness and crave it like never before.

Yeah, he could probably lift you with ease. Those arms around your waist, your hands on his shoulders, supported by his warm, solid chest. So often it feels like he’s holding back with you, teasing you, playing with your curiosity before withdrawing into his own world. How long can you remain satisfied with imagination? 

“You know, I’m just gonna take your silence as confirmation. Don’t even say anything, there’s no need,” he deadpans, jiggling an ice tray back into its rightful place. 

You take a step back when you realise you'd been kind of orbiting him. "What—"

"Ah. No, no," he interrupts. "No excuses."

"Ludo—"

He slaps his hands together and grins at you. "You're distracting me, you know. I don't usually clean with an audience." 

An audience. Oh. That means—

"Maybe if you'd stop staring at me for a minute or two, it might be easier to hold a conversation with you. No?" He's enjoying himself. Fingers drumming on the top of the freezer, head tilted in inquiry, waiting patiently for a defence. 

"I'm not — I'm not staring at you," you say, very compellingly. You'd definitely believe such a watertight argument if you were him.

"Oh, sure you're not. You're just choosing to ignore me on purpose, hm?" he tuts. 

God, he’s cruel. You burn under the scrutiny of his gaze, those cool eyes like ice cubes pressed against your skin. Maybe you shouldn’t be entertaining thoughts that force you to think about him being pressed against— 

“So sorry for boring you,” he drawls, not at all apologetic. “Let me finish up with this and I might be able to think of more exciting things to do.”