#this is one of those posts that without an example is just vauge enough that people can chose to misinterpret it

[chushanye]

everyday I see people in fandoms treat different intepretations of a work as morally corrupt or accuse others of not knowing how to do analysis better than a third grader and while I sometimes get the frustration when people completely miss the point I do not understand the immidate hostility and urge to insult them, their intellegence, their morals or whatever.

especially 'cause like...I join fandoms so I can have discussion with people. that's what makes it fun. so it's a pet peeve of mine when people make it a point to call others morons in an attempt to shut down any actual discussion and just spark fights instead of like...opening up to see other's train of thought and introduce their own. like are you actually looking for an interesting perspective/interpretation or is this an attempt to validate the importance of your own opinions because you feel attacked by the existance of other interpretations?

[milos-lil-corner]

Headcanons with accompanying doodles

Below are headcanons and stuff of multiple creepypasta dudes.

Random thought from a friend: Zalgo really not liking being summoned by either their followers or random weirdos, so he would be very passive aggressive and try to cut time short to get the hell out of there so they can go back to whatever they were doing before. Not nessacarily a headcanon, but I'd like to imagine it.

Anyways, Zalgo in a a steriotypical "I really don't wanna be here" shirt

-

Since me and my friend headcanon Slender as blind ( legally, at least. It can still vaugely see shapes near itself, but otherwise can't see shit without the use of its azoth. Anyways - ), and because of their species weird thing about height, Slender might mistake a light pole to be one of its species and sort of just. Stand there, sizing it up for a couple of hours.

Imagine your walking in the woods and see a fucker the size of a two story house sizing up a lamp post.

-

It's said ghosts and demons can't get to you if you are in a circle of salt. And since Sally is a ghost, I'd imagine that salt should would work on her too.

Cue, teddy bear in a salt circle. Whoever put it there, who knows - but they are an asshole.

-

I haven't read LJ's story, so idk if the shit I'm saying would be technically canon or not, but I'd like to think he'd use his box as a place to sleep. Sure, he was imprisoned in the box for a long ass time, but hey - self torture and trauma can't get in the way of a good night's sleep.

-

'Nother thing about LJ - I'd like to imagine he would collect those dumb plushie clowns. Whether its because he finds them cute or as a way to cope, who knows.

Also, LJ's design is different from the original cause I'd like to think his little accessories and shit can be removed. Also gives the impression of him being a plush doll, which is what he is in my mind lol.

-

Ill make a post about SlenderFolk and my version later on, but here's an example of how some would sleep. They can also sleep while standing, looking like a tree from far away with their azoth just sort of hanging around everywhere to keep them upright. Course, though, if they were to feel safe enough, they can just lay down like a cat or something.

-

SlenderFolk are tall as hell, so the thought of them being struck my lighting due to how high they are is funny as fuck. Depending on how old the SlenderFolk is, I'd like to imagine they would have more lighting scars or something like that. Shows the age.

-

Little doodle of Slenderman as a welp. Result of a convo between my friend on the wholesome tragedy thats going on between Splendor and Slender. In the rp lore, Splendor is the oldest out of the bunch, with Slender being the second oldest. Splendor took care of himself and his brother during the evolution of human civilization, being all cute and shit before character development happened and their relationship turned sour.

But yeah! Slender as a lil cutie.

-

Speaking of welps - SlenderFolk call their youth welps. Course, the person showed on the ground isn't a welp, as its one of my ocs ( mechanical limbs due to unwilling experimentation by the military - it's a long story ). Again, Slenderman being blind helps create funny ( at least to me and my friend ) scenerios that double as a way to explore SlenderFolk culture and weird cryptid lore.

-

And that's about it. More to come soon :)

[drunkoctopusinc]

Saw this on Instagram and not gonna lie- it kinda bugged me. Some of these points are accurate, some I disagree with but I see the argument for, others are out and out wrong. Usually the inaccuracies are due to purpously inflammatory phrasing, which is understandable since its a meme but the issues are to important for the language to stand fully uncriticed. Basically, I know it’s just a meme but I wanna pick it apart since this stuff is important and quite frankly I’m a little bored.

“Total support for Isreal”

This is true of the official platforms for each party. That being said I think it’s important to note you will find Democratic candidates and office holders with more moderated views on Isreal and (increasingly so) candidates who strongly support Palestine. There is no such moderation or diversity of opinion on the Republican side. If you want to cast your vote for someone who doesn’t support Isreal you might find that in a Democrat especially in the House of Reps, so be sure to look up your local candidates because they might surprise you on this one.

“Do Wall Streets bidding”

Wall Street is basically begging for Dodd-Frank to be repealed, and no Democrat is gonna do that. A Democratic administration created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and since 2010 there have been 3 separate bills introduced by Democrats to improve/reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. (The most recent was a bi-patrician bill sponsored by Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), John McCain (R-AZ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Angus King (I-ME)) I understand how a lack of success can make it feel like Democrats are just doing Wall Street’s bidding, but that’s not the case. There are certainly differences in the level of regulation Democrats are asking for, but the broad strokes is Democrats want regulations put on Wall Street, while Republicans believe Wall Street can be trusted to do whatever they want.

“Unlimited Military Spending”

Much to my chagrin, this is true. Regardless of party affiliation it’s good for any elected official to say they brought jobs to the district, and more fighter jets mean more jobs building fighter jets. No one wants to rock that boat.

“Hostility to Russia, Iran, & China”

This one has multiple parts with varing degrees of debatablity. For Russia the Obama Administration tried to soften relations but Putin basically responded “No thanks Toots” and proceeded to violated Ukraine’s sovrienty, back a dictator using chemical weapons on his own people, and meddle in our elections. Basically the Dems tried but it’s a two way street and Russia’s gotta be on board too. Meanwhile Trump and the Republicans seem to be fine with Russia paying militants to kill Americans and undermining democratic norms in the 2016 US elections as well as a bunch of other European elections so seems like they want to get along with Russia whatever it fucking takes. So I’d say there’s a pretty big difference on that one.

Regarding Iran, there’s not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both are skeptical about Iran and don’t want to risk the alliances we have with other middle eastern nations in order to tighten bonds with Iran. HOWEVER, the Iran Nuclear Treaty was a huge step forward in calming tensions which damn near every democrat supported. And the Republicans basically yeeted it into the sun for no good reason. So at least democrats don’t want to make shit worse with Iran. As for China 100% hositlites would have remained the same with a Dem and probably most Republicans. But at the moment Republicans support an active trade war with China which is only making our relations with them worse. So for both Iran and China the Dems gotta get at least some points for not wanting to make shit worse.

“Full Spectrum Dominance.”

Yes. Both parties want the US to a strong political and economic force on the world stage without any major foreign threats. (TBH I struggle to see the problem with this because that dominance could be used to give every nation wi-fi and tasty cookies just easily as to perpetuate rampant injustice especially when its so vauge as to what they mean by Full Spectrum Dominance. But I don’t have nothing against you if you don’t want the US to persue dominance as goal.)

“Let Money Rule politics”

Campaign finance reform is a complicated issue because there isn’t 1 clear answer for how to do it. Campaigning costs a lot of money and candidates have to get that money somehow, unfortunately there isn’t really an answer for how it needs to be done that can’t in some way be attacked for not going far enough or not solving the real problem. So while Democrats generally try to find solutions and create reform, it is perfectly understandable and reasonable to feel they aren’t actually solving anything. However I think it’s important note (given how important this years election is) that Joe Biden has been very consistent on voting for campaign finance reform for the past 40 years, even going so far as to create a system of public funding for congressional elections in the early 90s. So if this is a high priority issue for you Joe Biden has a strong record on it.

“Neoliberalism Rocks!”

I’ve found online the term “neoliberalism” is used to describe such a wide range of policies it’s becoming less and less clear exactly what a person means by saying “neoliberalism.” So how accurate this claim is really depends on how you define “neoliberal.” That caveats aside, traditionally both parties have their neoliberal cohorts, and they do wield a far bit of power since they usually are the “deal makers” who talk more with the other side and create the compromises which get broad enough support to pass. However, the Republican Party has been drifting away from neoliberal policies for some time and has been completely sprinting away from them since trump was elected. For example here are some policies self described neoliberals love which recent republicans have taken a massive shit on; Free Trade, easier immigration, and a carbon tax. Neoliberals are inherently in the middle so yes both parties have neoliberal segments (Bill Clinton, Bush Senior for example) but Republicans are rapidly running further and further right, so if not already accurate to say “Neoliberals universally identify as democrats” it will be soon.

“Spy on Everyone!”

This is a bit hyperbolic but yeah mostly. While there are officals on both sides who want to stop or at least curb the survalince state when talking about the respective parties as a whole there aren’t big differences on changing this, at least not public ones.

“Screw the Old and the Poor!”

This one is just so wildly overstated as to be impossible to really discuss/debate effectively. I could say this is false because both parties agree we should strive to eleminate poverty but they differ on how. I could also say this is true because neither party has proposed a solution which would actually help end poverty, or I could say this is false because the Democratic platform includes issues like raising the minimum wage and expanding the social safety net which will help the poorest Americans. There’s no way to really analyze for accuracy because its so broad and emotional that it’s really more of an opinion statement than anything. (To be clear, there’s nothing inherently wrong with such a statement. In many ways they are critical to the nations broader political discussion. it just doesn’t lend itself to what I’m looking to do with this post and I felt it would have been dismissive to just say “it’s an emotional argument so I don’t care”) The only substantive thing I can say here which still fits into my general structure is no candidate wants to do anything against old people because old people vote in big numbers. It’s the reason despite talk of cutting medicare and social security Republicans haven’t actually tried anything substantial on those issues.

“Oligarchy not democracy”

This is another one that gets caught up in definition. If you use the strictest definition of democracy and a broad definiton of Oligarchy then yes this is right but otherwise it really depends on how you define oligarchy. The majority of Americans have the right to vote, thus they have a say in what our government does. This would generally meet the most common definition of democracy and neither party wants to change that (at least not officially.) there is no bi partisan call for the wealthiest 1% or even the wealthiest 10% of Americans to have exclusive control over our governance. Of course that’s the most inflammatory version of this statement, and I doubt that’s what the person who wrote it was saying. The more likely definition of oligarchy this person was using is a government where an elite class hold a disproportionate share of political power rather all political power. In which case it’s very very hard to agrue the US isn’t an oligarchy. I mean even if we put aside the more heavily debated question of how strongly political power and money are, I think everyone would agree my senator has more political power than I do. Plus, the founders didn’t want “mob rule” they were terrified of a populist leader rising up, so they didn’t create a pure democracy. Instead they made republic, which one could argue is simultaneously an oligarchy and a democracy. This means when anyone looks to maintain the current american system even in the broadest strokes it could be agrued they’re supporting oligarchy over democracy. However you could just as easily argue they’re supporting democracy. The line between oligarchy and democracy aren’t as clear as we’d like them to be. (And of course when you bring the “how strongly are political power and money connected” debate back into the picture it only gets more obscured). Now, to finally get to my point, the degree to which the US is an oligarchy is unclear and so is the degree to which each party supports maintaining the oligarchical elements. However I think saying that either party doesn’t support democracy is inaccurate. BUT I also think it is vital that we recognize under Trump the Republican Party has tolerated repeated undermining of our democratic system risking serious and dangerous backsliding into totalitarianism. The Democratic Party has not engaged in this backsliding at all and has fought against it as much as they can, and you absolutely must understand that as you vote this fall.

“Vive US imperialism!”

Yeah this is pretty much spot on. I mean I don’t think either political party is looking to conquer Cuba or to steal Baja California from Mexico but yeah the bulk of people in each party are at the very least not invested in reducing what has been called “Neo-imperialism” which is almost certainly what this statement is referring to, so while I could get this on the technically but that would be disingenuous.

“outlaw third parties”

Third parties are legal. No one wants to make them illegal, the constitution also wouldnt let them. The problem is our voting system makes third parties mathematically unstrategic. You could argue they are functionally unallowed and there’s no insensitive for either party to change that so the idea here isn’t to far off, but outlawing third parties is such a bold claim, and that mathy disadvantage is drastically reduced in local races. So if you support a third party or want to create a third party, go for it. Just know that your efforts will be best spent starting local.

“Crush the left”

Pretty sure “the left” here means self described socialists and further left in which case yes. the establishment of both parties are still scared by the s-word and even worse the c-word because no one wants to be the USSR. But there are loads of people who would define the left as the democrats and the Democratic Party doesn’t want to crush Democratic Party. (It doesn’t mean to be a self destructive idiot but sometimes it just can’t help itself) so again I know what they’re going for here but little astrisk for other people might not.

“Regime change is cool.”

If regime change was something both parties liked there would be US troops in Venezuela right now. The oldest Democrats might not be out and out against all regime change but no democrat (and plenty of Republicans quiet frankly) want to repeat the Iraq War. When it comes to regime change worse case something democrats and republicans disagree on and best case something they both agree is bad.

TL;DR- there are key differences between the political parties, regardless of what a meme might say. It’s not the 90s anymore so those differences are pretty big and only getting bigger. To each there own on who and what they support, so do your research and learn which party and which candidates best represents your values.

PS- if it’s Donald Trump go jump of a bridge.

[accelerando]

thoughts on worldbuilding as art and worldbuilding as ancillary to narrative, not a vauge but a slate of thoughts i’ve had after reading a friend’s post

-- (edit) to clarify beforehand, not all of this is a direct response to my friend (pazi, whom i recommend you follow cause shes a rly cool SF author) i'm partly responding to notions about worldbuilding that i’ve heard from other people and partly elaborating my general thoughts about worldbuilding here, so dont take this as a rebuke of what she’s written on the subject but more as a reframing of the concerns from a worldbuilding-to-worldbuild author’s perspective

i agree there's other ways to go about writing a good story and that worldbuilding in itself doesn't make things inherently more consistent-feeling or less contrived and self-servey feeling but i find it useful

ofc i enjoy the research and so on in itself, and like, learning about these different fields and stuff that i read on and compose my thoughts about... also it's been an important thing in my personal approach of like expanding out in my personal horizons of like... what could be possible. what could we look forward to. though certainly i’m not infallible but i like to think about it from that angle

and ofc not everyone is going to have that goal, or need it. its naive at least for sf/f spaces to try and convince people that if your story is in need of fixing up, what it absolutely/foremost/at root level, needs, is better worldbuilding. i think worldbuilding CAN produce interesting ideas and concepts but its not inherently about that

certainly people who aren’t that into math but don’t know better can get caught up spending ages calculating the exact orbits and day cycles of their fictional planets and such or trying to break into conlang because they think they have to do that. and like tbh... no, but a lot of “smart SF” resources tend to emphasize these kinds of details and like it looks cool to have little number statistics on everything so surely itd be even cooler if those were all worked out to minute accuracy, right?

not necessarily; if your story doesnt absolutely depend on little details like that i do think you can afford to fudge it at least somewhat. an SF story doesn’t have to be a meticulous after-action report of the technical failure of some spaceship, which is often based on wildly fantastical technology anyway, even if NASA scientists wrote a paper on it at some point. the Orion Drive is case in point of this imo; a speculative engineering project based on “existing tech” that never got further than cold war paper in the 50s and yet people claim we could build them “like a battleship” with no ill effects. where are all the tried and trusted Orion shipyards then? how about the completely harmless nuclear tests? who can promise shock absorber technology capable of shielding a ten thousand ton skyscraper against a nuclear bomb every second?

these kinds of inconsistencies show up all the time in hard SF and “hard fantasy” as i might call it, and “good worldbuilding” often gets related to the ability to throw up lots of little details, calculations and citations of physical principles or complex self-consistent magic, which can go unquestioned as long as nobody in the audience has any better idea of what the author is talking about, or cares enough to pick it apart. but calculation without purpose does not necessarily make a story feel more in context or less contrived

that in mind, i find worldbuilding useful. it is an art in itself for one, and (to clarify for my own sake) worldbuilding is enjoyable to me just because it is interesting for its own sake, to me. and at some point, any world implies stories to be crafted, can give good guidelines and details to draw upon. i don’t think that that promise of worldbuilding is inherently vapid, nor that worldbuilding and firming up the setting of a narrative are unrelated. RPG settings of course can give good examples of this; one is given a setting rubric with which to guide the establishment of a finer narrative

and certainly this can become a trap when presented as an ideal, that one must have a setting in order for good stories to spring forth, with background worth exploring. even for those who want to worldbuild, few can give a concise answer as to what “good worldbuilding” entails besides basically, “study more”, and “good worldbuilding = good writing”. study more planetary orbits, more orbital physics, more biology, more linguistics. few can give general roadmaps to aid worldbuilding for creating a... setting, rather than a mess of disparate and unconnected details. so what if the orion battleship’s engine and aerodynamics and life support are meticulously worked out if your story is about a greater interplanetary war and you can’t describe the first thing about what life is like under the war or make the story’s conflict more reasonable and interesting than “good american colonial marines analogue” versus “bad socialists / insectoid aliens” etc? what is the (hi)story tying these things together?

imo, worldbuilding is a strain of storytelling at a different scale - fictional groups and factions and things interacting in fictional relations. and like writing a good story that lends itself to inspiring interest and like, fanwork and headcanons and fanworldbuilds etc, writing an interesting and compelling world that inspires smaller-scale stories is not a mutually inclusive or exclusive separate skill. we don’t have to try and be meticulously dialectical, and account for all relations in the world that led to the realization of each event in the story, although imo it is certainly interesting to see what people come up with in trying. but what makes a world compelling depends on who you ask, and being able to graph out the daycycle of a planet indeed does not correspond to universally increasing appeal, or even making your setting more internally consistent. meticulous and well-connected and interesting/wanted are not, universally, mutually inclusive. ultimately, a story needs to be something you want to write

and personally i do want that. i like exploring how futures or other worlds could come to pass, what conditions might enable them to come to pass, in ways that relate to what i know of “reality”

i also think though, that again, a lot of worldbuilding focuses much on detail over general connectedness, which is important to creating a world that feels... compelling imo. the story of the world becomes disparate as effort is concentrated in unrelated elements.

and i try to connect the elements of my world... how are things in the world constructed, in a general sense? details are important too, but they’re not all-important; there are places they are needed and places where they aren’t. a lot of things can be generalized, which doesn’t necessarily equate to oversimplifying. you can just say “there were multiple factors involved here, but the general arc was ____” rather than “the Zorgon empire did ____ and that was the whole story of it”. it’s like how we don’t have to write out the characters’ detailed lives on all the days between when interesting stuff happens in a novel.

(though claiming realism can easily be disingenuous certainly. if we take studies and accounting of existing “real” things as the rubric for our worldbuilding and storytelling, even people at the “forefronts” of study and thought constantly disagree on and find uncertainties in their interpretations of the world. even if it doesn’t “march on”, science and study are not objective, etc)

but yeah. it’s fun and interesting to me... worldbuilding can be fulfilling, but it isn’t necessary to make a story fulfilling. worldbuilding for a story can have you vastly extending the scope of the story you’re aiming to tell, and not everyone wants to or needs to do this to make a good story about individual people. though i do wish i could get into less meticulous material more easily, or other material in general

what’s the takeaway from this? i guess mostly that imo worldbuilding and storytelling draw on the same skillset of being able to relate actors in a story, although in worldbuilding there are ofc also many minute fields one may be expected to specialize into to create details about the “actors” (factions, machines, etc) in question. and so i agree on the notion that creating a compelling story does not depend on a compelling world, though from the standpoint that i enjoy worldbuilding myself and do think it can produce interesting novel concepts - but you have to be writing with the intent of producing interesting concepts. worldbuilders whose main intent is to remake your standard Colonial Marines but with more NASA are probably going to produce mainly Colonial Marines with more NASA

ultimately a compelling story or world or both is going to be a matter of combining and interacting ideas in interesting ways or ways that speak to you