#this is what happens when we prioritize quantity over quality

[pipinghawtcocoa]

ok which one of you losers robbed lmk s5 of its good animation

[ouijabard]

WC Fandom Callout/Hot Take Time!

(I would like to preface this by saying that I am a member of the Warrior Cats community myself; I love it here and there are so many amazing and talented people. This post is by no means saying that everybody here is guilty of this, nor is it meant to be an attack or show of ill will on those who are. <:])

Okay, so I have a small grievance to air:

Never, in all my years on the internet, have I ever seen a community that matches the sheer amount of negativity and petty spite the WC fandom has, especially towards its own creators.

Exhibit A:

WC fandom:

The Erins: *actually give us the most pretty, fun, and unique canon design we’ve ever gotten, which CLEARLY IS A CHIMERA AS THEY INTENDED DUE TO HOW HER BLACK FUR IS LONGER THAN HER ORANGE FUR (LOOK AT HER CHEEK FLUFF)*

WC Fandom:

LIKE. Y’ALL.

(I would also like to mention that while yes, the inbreeding is gross and warrants criticism, when you have such isolated populations interbreeding, it was always bound to happen, especially with such complex and forgettable lineages (of feral cats, no less (y’know, animals that form family trees like that naturally?)). Honestly? It’s been an issue for so long that I really think we should just stop pointlessly whining about it, accept it (as long as they aren’t too closely related/it isn’t immediate family incest), and move on.)

I get constructive criticism and civil discourse is healthy in a fandom, but there’s no need to be so blatantly and endlessly petty and spiteful, especially towards the people who try so hard to give you the thing you enjoy in a consistent and timely manner and live up to its legacy. I agree that there are definitely things they’ve messed up on or could do much better with and that they should prioritize quality over quantity more, but c’mon. Honestly, y’all will just find anything to bitch about. 😭 Besides, enough with the pessimism and belittlement! Fandoms are supposed to be fun, and trust me, you will have much more fun if you just let yourself be excited and see what happens. Even if it does feel somewhat like toxic positivity to say so, there's no joy in just being a critic all the time. :]

Anyway, sorry for the exasperated ramble, and thank you for coming to my TEDtalk. 🙏

[lcftyambiticns]

⋆ NAME?: Jey

⋆ PRONOUNS?: any, preferably they/them

⋆ MOST ACTIVE MUSE(S)?: Lorroakan, ugh.

⋆ RP PET PEEVES?: If your writing partners aren't communicating when something's bothering them — talk to me *shakes u*. Other than that, it's utterly ridiculous to demonize muns who write problematic characters/villains/dark content, I absolutely hate call-outs, vague posting, stirring up drama... In a nutshell, people who act like 12-year olds.

⋆ EXPERIENCE / HOW MANY YEARS?: 13-14 years. It's been a while, huh

⋆ FLUFF, ANGST, OR SMUT?: Yes. Okay, but angst is on top of that list. I want to be on my toes when waiting for the next reply, I want my muse to feel aaall the feels. Ngl I'm also a sucker for fluff. Smut is a case-by-case basis for me, but if I vibe with the mun and there's chemistry between our muses, I can write the most depraved filth.💅

⋆ PLOTS OR MEMES?: Both. Memes are great ice-breakers & prompts, and I think they're really fun. At some point, though, I'd like to plot. Mind you, plotting for me is basically "hey, how about we do x" and then seeing what happens. I don't like outlining every single detail.

⋆ LONG OR SHORT REPLIES?: Both. It depends on the thread. Sometimes I can wrap things up in 2 paragraphs, but if I'm really inspired and need to pour out SO MANY FEELS, I tend to get carried away. Oops. That said, I don't prioritize mirroring replies. Quality over quantity.

⋆ TIME TO WRITE?: Whenever I have time, typically in the evening or late afternoon.

⋆ ARE YOU LIKE YOUR MUSE(S)?: Abso-fucking-lutely not. At least not like Lorroakan. I definitely share some traits with some of my other muses, for instance @silveredhowls.

tagged by: Day @galefcrce Ty <3

tagging: @shadovan @lolthswcrn @lordliing @loyalborn @spiderwarden & and you!

[wordchivebyciel]

What message would you give to your 16 years old self?

Did we get that college degree? 

Yes, we made it through college, we ended up taking the course that is related to our passion and skills. 

Did we gain a lot of good friends? 

Yes, we gained a lot of good friends, and for the first time, we felt like we're truly belong with that group of friends that we hang out with. 

Do we still feel like it's cool if you're breaking the rules? 

Nope, we became well disciplined girl. 

Do we still backstab people? 

Nope, we became more aware of other people’s feelings. We became a good listener, we expanded our knowledge on how to build a good connection towards people, without us being nuisance to them. 

Do we still trying to FIT IN? To gain some more friends? 

Nope, we became more vigilant on whom we should trust. We cut off so many friends. IT'S QUALITY OVER QUANTITY FOR US GURL. 

Do we still watch anime to escape from reality? 

No girl, we're now into reading books, we're now physically active, we're now prioritizing our physical and mental health. 

Do we still feel pressured and scared about the future? 

Nope, we instill to our mind that 'WE MUST LIVE IN THE MOMENT'. We realized that we had so many good memories from the past, but we let it slipped away through time, because the moment that 'Good Memories' is happening, we're too busy focusing in the future. We're putting a lot of pressure on ourself. Relax okay? 🍃

Do we still use cheap phone, mini 'naghihingalo' na laptop and borrowed laptop from an old friend? 

Nope, we're now using individual gadgets now. Remember when we're trying to persuade mama to buy us iPhone 4s? Syempre di tayo binilhan, pero ngayon thankfully we can afford to buy certain gadgets na. (Oh diba level up yarn, sabi pa nga diba higit pang biyaya ang ibibigay ng Diyos as long as we believe and trust him) 

Do we still fight over one laptop and internet  connection? Nakiki-connect pa din ba tayo sa kapit-bahay? 

No honey, we're now using our own gadgets and may WIFI na tayo. (may wifi na sa 21st Century)

Do we still feel insecure with our self-image? Do we still have acne? Do we still procastinate a lot?

Tbh, we're making progress slowly.. it's not a linear process, but now I would say na we're more comfortable na with our own skin. We're taking care of our skin, we're working out and drinking lots of water. By that small changes in our habits nagkaron ng changes kaya I'm so proud of us. 

Are we still struggling financially?

Compared to before we're more blessed now. There's a lot of things to be grafeful for and I'm so grateful that God gave us the resiliency to overcome whatever financial struggle that we encounter with. 

Do we start dating real men not over the internet? 

Girl we single at 26, but we're manifesting real hard to find that right person for us. ❤️ ✨coconut cutie✨

Hello, Teenage Chiqui 

10 years from now you will be proud of us of how far we had become. Who would have thought that we had overcome our silent battles within ourselves and we became matured enough to process our feelings and learned how to cope up with them. Ang galing lang natin. ❤️

Also 10 years from now our friends will no longer call us by our full name because our college friends gave birth to our new name, we're 'Chi' now. At some point we felt like we're a whole new different person na while using that name, dami changes but we love those changes that happened to us kasi nga we both know how immature our brain works. Kaya proud ako saatin because we keep learning everyday and napalapit din tayo kay God habang tumatanda tayo kaya isang mahigpit na yakap satin Chiqui. ❤️ 

xoxo,

Ciel

[modernmonkeymind]

Hello! 👋 I was wondering if you had any insights about how to be more productive? Thank you in advance, MMM. :)

Moving

Consuming

Never stopping.

No wonder

we are

sick.

People who act like machines

inevitably break.

---

Prioritize sleep: Seven to eight hours has been found to be the minimum people need. For sleep to really be restful you need long stretches in REM (Rapid Eye Movement), and that doesn't happen until you've been asleep at least seven hours.

Get physically active: This doesn't have to be working out. In fact unless you're an athlete in training, working out really isn't necessary. Find ways to be active in your day to day. Choose to walk instead of drive/take transportation when possible, trade the Roomba in for a vacuum cleaner (or broom and dustpan if you want to get hardcore). The longest lived, healthiest people on the planet, the elder generation of Okinawa Japan, don't work out, they don't diet, they just stay active and eat until they're eighty percent full. I've been doing the same as best I can and I've lost five pounds since the beginning of the year.

Quality over quantity: Instead of an endless electronic to do list, write it out with pen and paper each morning. Just three to five things that'll have the most impact. Other things will come up, email will need to be addressed, but focus on getting this short list done. Preferably take care of it first thing if you can.

Limit screen time, especially in the evening: Screens fuck us up because they mess with the signals our brain is getting about what time of day it is. Ideally the last bright light you're exposed to should be two hours before bed.

Take up a hobby that doesn't require electronics: Reading paper books, reading/composing poetry, flower arranging, rock climbing, listening to music, meditation, just for a couple examples.

Take some time each day to do nothing: Sit and just be there, walk and just experience walking. We've gotten so used to distracting ourselves its scary. I wouldn't be surprised if there are way more broken people out there than we think and they've just gotten good at hiding the fact they're burnt out from over stimulation. We're not built to take in as much as many of us do with zero downtime to process and make sense of it.

[luckyladylily]

Ok I thought about how to express this a bit more and

The way to properly manage development resources is to have properly set development goals from the start, not being willing to cut corners once your overreach catches up with you. Part of properly set goals is looking at what you have and determining what is reasonable to achieve, and how to maximize the usefulness of those resources within that limit. This is why style over raw fidelity comes up so often in these discussions - the greatest strength of a well treated art team is their ability to create a powerful and unique style that punches above it's weight class of raw fidelity. Any studio that doesn't crunch it's artists will try to maximize that advantage while properly masking the lack of raw fidelity. The advantage of no crunch is quality over quantity.

If you are not crunching you would basically always go for the higher quality because the cost of doing so is very small since you are already most of the way there. And if your goal is to provide better conditions for your workers, you will always be better served better managing your goals than looking at places you could cut corners.

On the other hand, crunching allows you to create more by stretching and stressing your development resources, but at the sacrifice of quality. Volume is prioritized over doing it right, because you can't crunch creativity. This leads to glitches, lack of individual and cohesive style, lots of corners are cut. The advantage of crunch is quantity over quality. It is very important to note this is not speed over quality, just quantity. There is a reason crunched games tend to have inflated development times - remember the fiasco of cyberpunk 2077. But, critically, it is usually quite easy to mask the failures of crunch when it comes time to market the game - its hard to see how something should have been better, while it is very easy to see how there could have been less of something.

And its not like crunch happens on accident. Any time a AAA developer has crunch time? That was planned. It was known that it would happen, because it always happens. They are actually very proficient at estimating the capabilities of their teams, as their entire crunch based business model relies on these teams being pushed to the limit before being discarded.

There is this perception that to get rid of crunch we as end point gamers are going to have to make some significant or even noticeable sacrifice. That is the lie of consumerist driven activism. The games might be smaller, but you would never notice because what's being cut is low quality bloat, and what remains is of higher quality than it ever was. The only people who really sacrifice something if we get rid of crunch is the investors who don't get the "benefit" of having wrung every last dollar of value out of developers before spitting them out and the CEOs who get a smaller bonus checks.

when i say 'i want worse graphics', some ppl assume i mean 'i want stylyzed instead of realistic' then get mad at me for saying it wrong (???) so let me be clear:

i want worse graphics. i want the models topology to be a bit off, i want the rigging to have a few verts mis-weighted, i want the final model to not be accurate to the concept art cuz it would have been too labor intensive to make the scarf that long. i want the shading to do the thing where a real time character shadow is casting on top of another baked in shadow. i want whatever eases the devs workload and prevents crunch so they can go home to their loved ones and actually enjoy their life outside of work

and im not kidding

[rosewood-multifandom-writer]

How I describe RE5 and RE6: RE5 is what happens when you prioritize story and character over gameplay (the gameplay sucks). RE6 is what happens when you prioritize gameplay, quick time events as well as the quantity-over-quality vibes of the game (the storyline sucks, the villains suck, and it sucks that this game was basically the RE team writing themselves into a corner and pressed the emergency reboot button).

Gameplay wise, I like RE6. Story and character wise, I like RE5. I really wish we had RE6 have a bit of RE5’s writing, because it was slightly better in that game.

[drizztdonturden]

#added the scene tally for context bc this isn't even *just* a durge problem let me know if you want it off the post op#tbh i wasn't even surprised anymore by just how much more content ast*rion had compared to everyone else#larian - for whatever reason - had decided to make him their poster child and writers' pet for the entirety of ea already#so to have it be the same at release was#not surprising#what was surprising though is that they didn't even *try* to even out the content the others had#the difference in quantity and quality and just overall care is so stark#to have it confirmed by one of the main writers and apparently NARRATIVE LEAD DESIGNERS whose job it is to oversee EVERYONE'S development#is... Disappointing to say the very least#to have a writer say sorry#we didn't time and resources for any of the others#but we miraculously have the time to plan storyboard write record and animate them all for ast*rion is Truly Amazing

Hello! I hope OP doesn't mind me commenting on this, but I'm actually the person that wrote the post on Reddit analyzing Wyll's level of content in comparison to other companions. A friend told me that discussion of the data was circulating on Tumblr, so I took a look at some of the things being said on here, and made an account so I could clarify a few things. @galedekarios, you pretty aptly described what the biggest issue is, so I hope you're okay with me including your tags!

The first thing I want to state, is that Baudelaire Welch, the dev in question, uses they/them pronouns. I've seen a lot of people on Tumblr use the wrong pronouns, and I want to make sure that if this dialogue is happening, we all respect their identity properly.

I know a lot of people seem to be under the impression that this is the case, but Baudelaire Welch is not Astarion's writer. That is Stephen Rooney. However, Baudelaire is the senior narrative designer on the game, and according to their own blog, they are the "feature lead for companion characters and romances," and they wrote the Durge storyline. This is important to note because this isn't about Astarion's/the Durge's writer receiving more resources than their peers, this is about one of the narrative leads prioritizing one character over another. According to their Discord posts, they took the opportunity to work on Astarion over other companions, and didn't put aside the time to do this work on any other companion.

I've also seen people talking about the Durge being the intended main character. This is not accurate--what is correct is that there were early implications that Tav was meant to be a Bhaalspawn. But in this iteration, Tav did not have amnesia, nor were they implied to secretly be the super sexy and totally Bhaaling Jesus Christ of All Bhaalspawn. It appears that when Larian made the decision to make Tav just some guy and add the Dark Urge as an origin, they chose to make Durge more explicitly evil. It's a misconception to claim that Durge was always meant to be the main protagonist--rather, the Durge was added so this fandom could have more freedom to build their character however they wanted.

People also have been claiming that Astarion was the most popular companion in Early Access--that's not true. That's not even true in the full release of the game.

Contrary to popular belief, the finalized Wyll was not the last implemented companion. That was Karlach, who still has about 2 hours more dialogue than Wyll has. Theo Solomon stated in his interview with Dan Allen that he was brought in to play Wyll in November, whereas Samantha Beart was brought in to play Karlach six months prior to release (Apologies for not having a time stamp! I lost my notes that included it).

When I made the post, I was subjected to racism, bullying, and harassment. I bring it up because I think it's important to note that the reason Wyll was changed so much was because Larian made a mistake, and listened to a group of people that tend to criticize characters of color--especially fictional black people--far more heavily than their white counterparts. And while I believe Larian is well-intentioned, I don't think it's entirely possible to discuss the disparity of content without acknowledging that Wyll is a black man in an IP that has a lot of vocal racists in its fan base.

Anywho, apologies for the rant. But I think that this is something that needs to be addressed, and that we as a fandom need to discuss it factually. I hope this helps clear up some things!

i had not seen the "durge/astarion is canon!" post until earlier today with that discord screenshot and honestly ... a writer being like "i managed to shove in all this extra content for astarion/dark urge, but then we simply ran out of time for the other characters" is not good, actually. that doesn't mean your ship is the most canon. it means that astarion kept getting extra attention and other companions kept getting neglected. that other companions simply do not have the amount of content astarion has is not a good thing, it is a bad thing.

and like i'm saying this as someone who really loves astarion/durge. it's unplatable to me and that larian writers are sitting in fan discords going "yeah we just didn't do that for other characters but somehow i found the time for this!" is kind of gross to me

[stxleslyds]

Is there any comic book author out there that would restore your faith in DC's ability to (a) properly characterize Jason Todd and (b) have him to through a believable character arc (whether he progresses or regresses)?

Like, if DC announced that <writer name here> is leading a Jason-centric series, you would think "Finally! Hope for my boy Jason!"?

... Or is Jason's inconsistency and static growth inevitable in business models like DC's and Marvel's? I mean, from my perspective, it appears that their business relies now on quantity than quality. That's why Jason's growth is progressing at the rate of a Dragon Ball Z fight.

Hi!

I would love to see Judd Winick back again writing Jason, what he did was phenomenal, he made Jason unique within the Batman books, so I would love it if he made a mini for Black Label or normal DC.

If we are going for a full ongoing or lets say a 20-issues long book i will go with someone like, Kelly Thompson (Black Widow 2020), Kyle Higgins (Nightwing 2011, Winter Soldier: Second Chances) or Matthew Rosenberg (Hawkeye: Freefall, Tales of Suspense: Hawkeye and the Winter Soldier) 

I think they could write amazing Red Hood stories, Kelly writes Natasha who is a spy and extremely skilled assassin beautifully, it’s very well balanced but she makes sure to let the reader know that Natasha is a big deal and her enemies have to be extra careful with her. Also she is big on team-ups and i love that.

Higgins’ Nightwing run wasn't perfect (but i still liked it a lot) but it gave me the sense that he can make a complicated story work and his Dick Grayson felt consistent during his run. His work in Winter Soldier was perfect, Bucky is a complicated character with many issues that he wants to work on. Higgins told his story but didn't nerf Bucky’s skills or anything, he made them shine, and that's what i would love to see for Jason, a new story that doesn't need to nerf Jason in order for it to work.

Rosenberg is funny and he isn't scared of writing characters who kill, he has twists in his stories and he doesn't nerf characters, he adapts the context of the story to the power levels of the character he is writing. Another thing that i love about Rosenberg is the fact that he brings other characters to the book, in Hawkeye: Freefall Clint was joined by Bucky, Natasha, Sam, Luke and others and it worked, if they were with Clint during the whole issue or just for a few moments it still felt like a Hawkeye book and that's exactly what Jason needs too!

Those are writers whose work i have read but i would LOVE if DC brought a (Winick) Jason Todd/Red Hood fan. Someone who loves the character and has new stories to tell with the Jason that we once had. To give an example, i would love to see someone write Red Hood the same way Spider-Woman is being written by Karla Pacheco. Karla respects the origins of Jessica and loves the character, the stories that she is telling are based on events that have happened to Jessica. 

I just want DC to find a writer that has loved Jason since his first appearance as Red Hood or someone who wouldn't be afraid of giving us Drug Lord/Underworld Boss Jason Todd. Jason being a badass and fighting people like Black Mask and the Penguin and shit. I want him to be different, to bring duality back to Gotham’s vigilantes. 

But here is the thing, they way i see it, the concept of Red Hood as it was in 2005 is something that current DC can’t handle, they just don’t like it. They like heroes, they like people who don't kill because if they are in Gotham then they HAVE to follow the Bat’s rules. Jason doesn’t fit in. Even this washed up version of Jason doesn’t fit in, because his character wasn’t meant to follow the Bats rules! 

Someone disagreeing with Batman is considered a villain, the is no gray area for DC anymore and that is what is hurting Jason's characterization. So in a sense the problem is DCs business model but not because they prioritize quantity over quality but because they refuse to be creative or to have some of their characters be dual, anti-heroes are an thing and DC should make use of them.

When it comes to Marvel, I believe that this era is their best, there are a lot of books, yes, but that’s because they want to reach more readers, you have the x-books for the mutants fans, the books directed for younger readers like Champions and Ms. Marvel, there is also the cosmic side that is getting even more interesting with Guardians of the Galaxy...to me Marvel is doing wonders right now. 

Sorry for the long answer! I hope you have an amazing day and lets hope that Zdarsky’s Red Hood gets better or that Jason gets the love that he deserves!

[apollotarot]

🌚 New Moon In Scorpio 2021 Tarot Spread

We at Apollo Tarot share a tarot spread related to the zodiac sign the Moon is passing every New and Full Moon. Here is our New Moon in Scorpio 2021 Tarot Spread for the November 4th Moon.

New Moon In Scorpio 2021 Tarot Spread

If you already know how to plan for your life using the Moon Cycles, please skip the quick intro below, and jump to the juicy part. But if you need a refreshment, here is how to use our Tarot Spreads according to the Moon's position.

A quick intro to our New Moon in Scorpio Tarot Spread:

We can align our intentions with the Moon's cycles to make the most out of its influence on us.

New Moons are perfect for new beginnings, starting projects, or growing them. Now Full Moons, and the period after it, are most suitable for a "draw-back." That's when we evaluate our accomplishments, reorganize, and plan for the next New Moon phase.

So, briefly:

🌚 New Moon: Set your intentions, and begin your projects;

🌝 Full Moon: Celebrate your achievements, and release what no longer serves you.

Since the Moon rules the emotional tone of a given moment, it's good to know her mood. Which is influenced by the zodiac sign the Moon is passing at the moment. The zodiac signs also indicate how well we do things.

What are the planetary aspects affecting this New Moon in Scorpio?

On November 4th, the Moon is all new again. The alignment of the Sun and the Moon takes place in the sign of Scorpio, with Mars, the planet of energy and initiative, squaring restrictive Saturn and rebellious Uranus.

It will be one of the most challenging Moon Cycles of the year, so let's prepare for it.

By the way, November as a whole is a tense and intense month 😵‍💫 #spoilalert.

As said before, Mars and Uranus are opposing each other. But the highlight of this cycle that begins with the New Moon In Scorpio will happen with a Full Moon that will also be a lunar eclipse.

This Eclipse during a Full Moon can shake structures, mess with once secured resources, question our values and how we function. In addition, this Scorpio Moon Cycle can touch emotional issues powerfully.

What energies are involving this New Moon in Scorpio Cycle?

In Scorpio, the Lunation that begins now promises intensity and asks for deep dives within, but be careful not to drown. Overthinking your feelings is never helpful. Instead, close your eyes, pause for a moment, and use your heart to discern aspects of yourself that are in time to let go.

The risks of accidents and damages also exist throughout this New Moon in Scorpio Cycle.

We may face unforeseen events, setbacks, and changes in plans. Time schedules can also be different from predicted, and irritability can take us over.

We must not act on impulse, but we must take care not to fail to do what are in our plans. This New Moon In Scorpio reinforces the importance of honoring commitments and agreements.

And there's more, Venus in Capricorn will shake relationship structures since the Planet of Love will be retrograde and confronting Pluto for months to come.

What will this New Moon in Scorpio bring to the collective?

Collectively, these are challenging economic and political times, with risks of more turmoil ahead. We must also be aware of the risk of accidents, climate issues, and natural disasters.

It is essential to go deeper into what we are up to, prioritizing quality over quantity and rethinking our paths. Use this New Moon in Scorpio to question your values and reflect if they can bring effective changes for a better world.

These are not easy times, but we can change the course of events, if only with time.

Five Cards - New Moon in Scorpio Tarot Spread:

Now, to make the most of this New Moon in Scorpio, start shuffling your favorite tarot deck, and ask the cards:

New Moon in Scorpio 2021 Tarot Spread

How can I best transmute negative feelings into positive ones?

What do I need to be aware of before acting on impulse?

How can I best prepare for unpredicted events?

How can I strengthen my ties with loved ones to endure challenging times?

What do I need to change in me to change the world?

As an extra activity, you may want to pick the Death Card from your tarot deck and meditate or reflect on its power, as this card correlates with Scorpio.

Our Bijou Tarot Card Necklaces are among our shop's best-sellers. Shop for yours here 👇

Share your New Moon in Scorpio 2021 Tarot Spread with me!

I'd love to hear your thoughts about our New Moon in Scorpio 2021 Tarot Spread. Please leave us a comment here or on any of our social media channels.

Don't forget to sign up for our newsletter (subscribe at apollotarot.com) to get the next Full Moon in Taurus 2021 Tarot Spread in time.

We have a collection of exclusive Tarot Card Phone Cases. Take a look here.

[jebazzled]

troubleshooting: common quandaries and thots to overcome

It's no surprise that people whose major hobby involves writing, the internet, and fandom are often people who carry a lot of anxiety and tension around with them. For many of us, writing is something we do to escape, relax, unwind, and flex creative muscles we might not get to use at work or school. I get it.

For many of us, however, it also seems like forum rp is a stressor, a cause of great anxiety and insecurity. We've all seen or known people who go through a major rp-related crisis.

Sometimes, these crises are truly major - catastrophic falling-outs and permanently damaging rumor mills and etc etc. But a lot of the time? Well. It's not that it's "in your head," because obviously what you are feeling is very valid. But I think sometimes the way we think of internet spaces fuels dysfunctional thinking.

This isn't quite a tutorial; it's more in the vein of my tough love re: writer's block. I'm going to talk through some common scenarios, anxieties, and other issues I see in the rp community, and offer my (fully unsolicited) thoughts and advice. As always, your mileage may vary, but I'm trying!

Topics covered, because this one is a LONGBOI:

Insecurity & thread reactions

Insecurity & completionism/ Being Liked

Jealousy (especially ship-related)

The server is not therapy.

So here's the thing about the internet: for better or worse, it's for everyone.

On the far end of the spectrum, this means that the internet is a great incubator for toxic garbage. See: right-wing radicals, etc. But for most of us, this means that there is room on the internet for weird little me and my weird little hobby. You can find a community to talk about virtually any interest. You, for example, found the rp community.

So here's the thing about the internet: for better or worse, it's for everyone. This means that while you can find a community to talk about virtually any interest, you are never going to find a community that is completely without flaws.

There will always be people who annoy you, rub you the wrong way, or who you think are mean-spirited and negative. There will always be someone you don't get along with. There will always be people who disagree with you.

I have been in servers where members come to me time and time again to complain about other members, as though I am going to boot someone for wanting to talk about x just because they, personally, are sick of hearing about x. I am not going to tell someone to change their personality because someone else, personally, finds it annoying.

Offline, you wouldn't tell your manager at Starbucks to fire Susie because you don't like talking to her. You would simply not talk to her outside of a professional context. You would simply not take your break at the same time as her. You would simply not make small talk with her when the store is quiet and would instead, like, read the liner notes on whatever CD is at the register. (Does Starbucks still sell CDs?)

There will always be people in your community who you do not like and whose logic does not make sense to you. If they are not doing anything genuinely abusive, they have as much right to be in your community as you do. There is, in fact, likely someone in your community who finds you somewhat annoying. C'est la vie.

A community is not an environment custom-curated to your exact specifications. It is a community. You are not entitled to it being perfect. You are entitled to a space free from harassment and bigotry. If the space is free from harassment and bigotry and you cannot enjoy the space because someone else in it is existing harmlessly in a way that you dislike or find irritating, you have the option to leave the community. Discord server links are not a binding contract!

This is all to say: I think a lot of us expect far more of our online communities than is fair. Remember that every single person in your server is an individual human being with an interior life as rich as your own, and a list of neuroses possibly as extensive. None of them, yourself included, are perfect.

Oh, speaking of that list of neuroses! Let's tackle it, babe.

Your neuroses are not anyone else's problem.

It is on you to work through and overcome your anxieties and insecurities.

It is kind of other people to accommodate your growth, or to modify their behavior so as not to trigger your anxieties and insecurities. They are by no means required to do so.

Note: they do need to respect your triggers, if you have them and list them.

So here we go: troubleshooting frequent freak-outs. Buckle up!!!

Insecurity & thread reactions (or lack thereof)

Some people experience a lot of anxiety and insecurity around how their writing partners react to their threads. This might surface in the form of feeling unappreciated/disliked if the thread partner doesn't drop an emoji react on the link in your server's tag channel, or in feeling like no one likes your writing because they aren't swooning over it in #affirmations/ #thread-shoutouts/ #quotables/ etc.

You are serving as both texters in this meme.

So... you don't actually know what's going on with your thread partner at any given moment, you know? Personally, here are some possible scenarios with me as your thread partner:

You tag me and I put a passage from your post in #thread-shoutouts: I am at my desk, on my computer, not engaged in active DM conversation with anyone, and your post either made me cackle or it made me emo

You tag me and I DM you to gush about it: there's a lot happening in the server right now/ I don't want to derail a public conversation

You tag me and I react with an emoji: I am at date night with my girlfriend and she is in the bathroom. I have had time to read your post. I probably haven't put it in my tracker and will try and remember later, when I find it in one of 100 tabs open on Safari on my phone.

You tag me and I don't react at all: I am swamped with work and read your post in between emails. Instead of taking a second to react I immediately jumped into my tracker to log your reply, and now I am back to emails.

You'll notice none of these rationales are: "I don't react at all because I dislike you as a human." "I actively chose to quote Susie in #thread-shoutouts and not you because I want to hurt you." "I don't DM you about our thread because I hate our thread."

It doesn't have to be that deep! Stop hurting yourself. Let yourself assume the kindest option. After all, don't you want people to assume the best of you, too?

If your thread partners know you value emoji reacts or thread shoutouts, it is kind of them to do them. But it isn't inherently unkind for them not to, either. You're better off trying to kick that need for public validation.

Overview for addressing thread reaction insecurity:

If your server has a thread shoutout/quotables/etc channel, mute it. Don't look at it. Stop giving yourself something to fixate on.

When you are worried that someone hates a thread because they aren't giving emoji reacts, instead of building a narrative in your head that may or may not be true - communicate! "What beats do you want us to make sure we hit in this thread?" is a good introductory question to see if a thread is doing something for either or both of you, and gives your partner a chance to say something if they do want it to go in a different direction and would be more excited.

If someone is continuing to write with you, regardless of whether they post an emoji, it is probably because they enjoy writing with you!

Be deliberate about your thread premises! In my experience, threads done "just because" without a specific purpose (e.g. building chemistry between ship partners, introducing a subplot about a cursed hairbrush, kidnapping a house elf) are the first to lose steam and lose interest. It's entirely possible that someone likes you, likes writing with you, and simply doesn't prioritize this thread above their others because there's nothing meaningful to prioritize!

Keep your eyes on your own paper and stop reading so much into what other people do or don't do. It's probably not that deep!

Insecurity & completionism/ Being Liked

You would not be the first person to exacerbate their own problems because of a sense of duty to the spirit of completionism. Here's the thing, friend:

You do not need to write with every member.

You do not need to plot with every character.

You do not need to be in every subplot.

You do not need to have a character in every member group.

People fall into this trap thinking that if they can be everything to everyone, it will make them popular/important/beloved/a truly included member of the site.

But quantity is not the same as quality. You might have a thread with every character onsite but if half those threads are under a "they're on the same bus" premise, then yeah, people aren't going to want to keep up with that thread, and it's going to contribute to your thread reaction anxiety!

Write characters you are excited about. But more importantly: write plots you are excited about. Write threads you are excited about. You can be friends with people in your server without writing with them! You are better off writing a smaller number of really well-plotted, juicy plots that everyone involved feels heavily invested in than in writing a lot of watery threads for the sake of writing with every single person. It's hard to believe, but many people would rather NOT have a thread and wait until there's a juicy reason to than write a thread that doesn't have any development relevance simply for the sake of it.

If you're finding that it's hard to find juicy or plot-driven reasons to thread with many people, that might be a hint to write different types of characters. While yes, people exist who are very self-contained and isolated, the purpose of rp isn't to be a direct mirror of real life. It's to have fun while writing with other people. If your character is not fun to write with other people, they are probably not a good fit for an rp setting.

RP is not a popularity contest. This is not high school. No one is voting for prom queen. Be kind and be open to ideas and collaboration and people will like you. People will enjoy writing with you! People might even go out of their way to write with you. And they will be writing things that matter to both of you. That's winning, dude.

You might be tempted to pinpoint a "popular group" in the server and fix your sights on becoming one of them. This is also a failing proposition: often the "popular group" you might first identify is incorrect, and you are mistaking "exclusivity" for "importance." Sometimes sites have a small, tight-knit group with intricate inter-group plots and a very visibly closed-off dynamic. Since that dynamic mirrors the popular girls you were raised watching in teen movies, I can understand why you would assume that these people are the most important people to befriend on a site. They're not. They're cliquey and exclusive, and trying to get them to make room for you when they have intentionally and performatively set themselves aside from many other members is like... lmao, dude, it's not going to work.

Not only that, but the fact that these people are hard to pin down? It's not a selling point! The most beloved members on any site are not the ones who make you beg for a scrap of their attention. The most beloved members are the people who are friendly and kind. THAT is who you want to Get In with.

Overview for addressing completionism tendencies and "what if I'm Left Out" woes:

This is not a popularity contest, and you are a grown up. Focus on having fun and enjoying writing. That is not something you can do if your first priority is Getting In with the people you think are a site's "Popular Crowd."

You do not need to be everything to everyone. You cannot be everything to everyone.

In fact, everyone will appreciate you more if you do less and you do it well.

Focus on the positive. Who cares if Susie and Sally won't write with you? Sarah and Sam love writing with you! Yes, it would make sense for Susie to plot with you because your characters work together - but again, this is a hobby, not real life, and if you and Susie don't vibe, your characters don't need to interact! Why write with people who make you feel insecure? Trick question; there's NO reason to!

I understand the drive to be well-liked. Trust! I, too, desperately want to be well-liked. You'll have better luck if you don't try so hard. Be yourself and make friends with people who genuinely like you. Stop worrying about what the site's yearbook will look like. There isn't going to be a fucking yearbook.

Jealousy (especially ship-related)

Do you ever find yourself feeling a spike of anxiety or resentment when one of your favorite writing partners writes with someone else?

This reaction is especially common where ships are concerned: when one partner writes AU ships with their character, or has a plot with their character's previous partners before their OTP, etc.

It's a bit territorial, and it's not a good look, friends!

Your writing partners get to write with other people. How much they enjoy writing with other people has nothing to do with how much they enjoy writing with you. How much they write with other people has nothing to do with you. What they write has nothing to do with you. It's not all about you!

It truly doesn't matter how anxious you feel when your writing partners write with other people. They are entitled to write with whoever they want! What makes you nervous about them writing with other people?

In a forum rp environment, the best way to secure fulfilling, satisfying character arcs for your character is to plot with multiple others. That includes you, on both fronts: your writing partner needs you for their character's development as much as you need them! They aren't going to just stop writing with you arbitrarily.

If they do stop writing with you, there is probably a reason! Are they still on the site? Are they still writing? Are they going through something in real life that might impact their muse? There could be a hundred reasons why they are writing more with Susie now than they were with you, and they could be anything from "Susie is out of town this week so I want to give her a lot of replies to come home to" to "a ladder fell on my head and I am recovering from a concussion" to, possibly, "your territorial behavior makes me uncomfortable, and I would rather write with people who do not make me feel bad about writing with other people."

This behavior is especially weird in a ship context, and is something worth unpacking. When you write ships, do you resent/get anxious about your ship partner writing AU ship threads? About their character having previous partners? About their character having crushes that they do not act on?

An AU ship is an alternate universe specifically because it is not real. Susie and Sally shacking up in a space AU has no bearing over whether or not Susie and Marco end up together as finals.

Just like human beings have romantic history, it makes sense for characters to have romantic history, and these plots give your writing partner an opportunity to write plots that they might not get with you. For example, your writing partner might want to write a breakup plot with weird friendship tensions, which might not be a relevant vibe for Susie and Marco. But your partner can explore that with Marco and Sally. Again: it's not all about you, and your writing partner gets to write what they want, and you do, too.

Sometimes I think we can trace the territorial side of ship-oriented plotting to toxic monogamy culture, as described here. Particularly relevant are the below:

the idea that you should meet your partner’s every need, and if you don’t, you’re either inadequate or they’re too needy

the idea that commitment is synonymous with exclusivity

the idea that your insecurities are always your partner’s responsibility to tip-toe around and never your responsibility to work on

the idea that your value to a partner is directly proportional to the amount of time and energy they spend on you, and it is in zero-sum competition with everything else they value in life

Your writing partner is not cheating on your ship by giving their character other ships. If it feels that way to you, you are getting too emotionally invested, and you should probably back off of ship-oriented plotting for a while to unpack why you are feeling this way.

That said, of course be clear about boundaries. This applies both to M-rated content and to parameters of plotting. For example, you might tell your partner that you are not interested in a plot whose core conflict is "will they or won't they." You want to write these characters with the longevity of their relationship never in doubt. You might not want a plot where one character is cheating on the other. You might want these characters to be monogamous. That's fair! It's not fair for you to expect your writing partner to limit the plots they do that do not actually involve your character to avoid triggering your insecurities.

Overview for dealing with jealousy:

It's not all about you! Your writing partners deserve to have a good time as much as you deserve to have a good time. They can enjoy writing with you AND writing with someone else.

Be very clear with your boundaries. If there are plots between your character and another character that you cannot write, let your partner know before they accidentally step in a minefield.

Be willing to step away from ships. There are plenty of plots that do not involve ships. If ships make you a jealous and anxious mess, you should stop writing ships and work on that journey. It is more important to be a good writing partner than it is to write romantic ships.

Writing is such a personal thing, and we all of course connect very deeply to our characters - it only makes sense that we be invested in their outcomes! But if your gut reaction is one of jealousy, this is something that you need to work on, not something your writing partners should need to tiptoe around.

The server is not therapy.

Because rp is an online hobby, it can be easy to forget that every person you interact with in the server or forum is also a whole ass person on the other side of the screen. Which is to say, your rp friends do not exist to be your emotional support.

Of course they can be supportive - some of my closest friends are people I have met through rp! But online as in real life, you need to remember that everyone is always going through something. You are never the only person in the world who needs support, and you need to be thoughtful in how you engage with your friends here.

Do you listen when they share their problems, or do you immediately change the subject to talk more about your own? Do they not share their problems at all - is this a one-sided close friendship? Are the majority of your DMs to them seeking comfort, advice, affirmation, validation?

If you need a text-based counseling service, BetterHelp can connect you with a therapist. A therapist is a person whose job is to listen and ask nothing from you for their own personal emotional needs.

Your friends - online as in real life - are not therapists. They will not always have the bandwidth to help you. They will not always feel comfortable helping you. The internet breeds a sense of intimacy, the idea that regular chat conversation makes for a deep knowledge of another person. And of course this is sometimes the case! But in many cases, the person you are asking for psychoanalysis in the DMs on Discord doesn't actually know you very well. And if you have been relying on them for emotional support, you might be wearing them out.

Overview for not treating your rp friends like therapists:

Be thoughtful. If you have something heavy you want to talk about, first ask if they have the bandwidth. For example: "Hi Susie! Do you have the energy to give me some advice on x work issue?"

Listen. If your friend wants to talk about their issues, stop thinking about how you can relate and it sounds just like that time you... and just LISTEN. If you want to offer advice, keep it about them. If you don't know how to help, commiserate. "That's rough, buddy."

Self-check. Look at your chat history as though it's between your friend and someone you've never met. What do you think of this person? Are they a good listener? Do they reciprocate the support they get from your friend? Do they remember things your friend tells them about their own life? Or is this a one-sided conversation? If you're realizing that you're leaning too much on this friend, give them some space. If you're realizing you've gone way overboard leaning on this friend, maybe apologize and promise to be more conscientious going forward.

Be considerate. Remember that every person you know from the internet is so much more than what you've seen - I don't mean that in a "all internet users are creeps" way, I mean that in a "even if you've chatted in a server with some every day for six months, you still don't actually know them super well." Think of other people you've spent Some Time with. Think of your lab partner in 8th grade bio. You shared a desk with them for an hour a day five days a week for two thirds of the year. How much of your life did you share with them?

This tutorial got LONG - sorry, friends! Lots to talk about. I'm always happy to give Real TalksTM like this one. Feel free to drop into my askbox if you have a topic you'd like me to cover. I'm full of thoughts and feelings, and it would give me great joy for y'all to ask for them for once.

I hope this is helpful, and wish all y'all the best. Happy writing!

[kiingocreative]

In his book How to Write Dazzling Dialogue, James Scott Bell lists a couple of techniques we can use to help train our dialogue skills.

The Voice Journal is a technique to discover a character's voice. Bell says, "This is a free-form document, stream of consciousness, in the character's own voice. How do I know what the character's voice sounds like? I prompt them with questions and then let them talk. I do this fast, without thinking about it much. What I'm waiting for is the moment when the character starts talking to me in a voice I did not plan. And it always happens. That's the fun part, when the character starts to take on life for me. We don't want our characters sounding the same when they speak, and the Voice Journal helps you avoid that condition."

As with most creative techniques, we want to prioritize quantity over quality while we're in the creative mindset. Don't be concerned if a character's voice isn't coming yet--just keep writing. Bell says, "Take your time with this journal. Don't try to do it all in one sitting. I come back to it often with my main characters, adding to it, analyzing it, sharpening it."

Bell also suggests a time-tested technique for practicing dialogue: improvisation. He says, "A 'down and dirty' way to do improv, however, is right in your own home. Watch TV with the sound off, and do the voices of the characters. I find it best to do this with commercials. The ads move fast, so you have to. This may sound silly or crazy, but guess what? You're a writer. You're already crazy. Go ahead and grease that wheel." Bell also suggests pulling from a list of character archetypes (such as "geek", "mad scientist", "farmer", etc.) and improvising in that chosen voice.

[arcticdementor]

I have to begin this column by admitting that “Biden” (note: when in quotation marks, I refer to the “collective Biden”, not the clearly senile man) surprised me: it appears that my personal rule-of-thumb about US Presidents (each one is even worse than his predecessor) might not necessarily apply in “Biden’s” case. That is not to say that “Biden” won’t end up proving my rule of thumb as still applicable, just that what I am seeing right now is not what I feared or expected.

…

I think that both of these grossly oversimplify a probably much more complex and nuanced reality. In other words, “Biden” surprised many, if not most, Russians. That is very interesting by itself (neither Bush, nor Obama nor Trump ever surprised the Russians – who knew the score about all of them – in any meaningful way).

My strictly personal guess is that there is some very serious infighting currently taking place inside the US ruling class. Furthermore, that serious infighting is not about core principles or even strategy – it is a dispute over tactics only.

We have to keep in mind an old truism about outcomes: John F. Kennedy once said that “victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan” and he was right. When any group seizes power and effectively controls its interests, all is well, and everybody is busy consuming the proverbial milk and honey. But when this group suffers a series of humiliating defeats, a typical cascade of events begins:

Finger pointing: everybody blames everybody else (but never himself/herself)

Hindsight wisdom: “if I had been in charge, this would not have happened!”

Infighting over quickly shrinking spoils of war

A collapse of the centralized center of authority/decision-making centers

Generation of subgroups, fighting each other over their sub-interests

In other words, following many years of extremely weak presidential administrations (since Clinton, imho), it is hardly a surprise that infighting would take place (in both parties, by the way). In fact, an apparently chaotic set of uncoordinated, or even contradictory, policies is what one should expect. And that is exactly what we have been observing since 1993 and this dynamic has been getting worse and worse with each passing year).

…

That being said, there are some observations which might be helpful when trying to at least (indirectly) identify who are the main groups fighting each other.

The hardcore, really nutty, russophobes are still here, especially in the US media which seems to be serving not so much “Biden” as much as some “crazies in the basement” kind of cabal. Next to the legacy ziomedia, there is an increasing number of US/NATO/UK military officials who are foaming at the mouth with threats, warnings, complaints and insults, all against Putin and Russia. This is important because:

The “Zone A” media has comprehensively and very effectively concealed the very real risks of war with Russia, China and Iran. And if this was mentioned, the presstitutes always stressed that the US has the “best military in the history of the galaxy” and that Uncle Sam will “kickass” anybody he chooses to. If the people of the USA were informed of the truth of the matter, they would freak out and demand that this path to war be immediately abandoned and replaced with a meaningful dialog.

US/NATO/UK authorities have talked themselves into a corner where they have only two outcomes left: they can do what the US always does, that is to “declare victory and leave”, or they can force Russia to protect her borders on land, air and sea and, thereby, face a major military humiliation delivered by Russia.

Truth be told, during the recent naval exercises UK and US officials made a lot of threats and promises to ignore Russian warnings, but in the end, they quietly packed and left. Smart choice, but it must have been painfully humiliating for them, which is very dangerous by itself.

…

There will be many more NATO exercises in the Black Sea in the future. Ditto for USN operations off the Chinese, Iranian or DPRK coasts. This (always explosive) combo of ignorance, arrogance and incompetence could result in a major war.

LAnother option is the terminally delusional UK government (supported by those Brits who still have phantom pains about their lost empire and, of course, by the largely irrelevant 3B+PU gang) might do something really stupid (say, like this) and trigger a war with the DPRK, Russia, China or Iran and then the US would have to move to defend/save a British Navy which is mostly a joke (at least by Russian or Chinese standards). The main problem here being that the USN is also in a terrible shape and cannot compete against Russian and Chinese standoff weapons (I mean that literally, there are currently no defenses against maneuvering hypersonic missiles! The only exception would be the Russian S-500). The latter two nations, by the way, have joined into an informal and unofficial military alliance for many years already; check out this article and video or this one for a recent update).

But opposite, de-escalatory developments are also taking place. First and foremost, “Biden” seemed to have “farmed out” the “Ukrainian dossier” to the Germans and washed Uncle Shmuel’s hands from it. If so, that was a very slick and smart move (which is something we have not witnessed from any administration in decades!). I highly recommend this translation of a most interesting article by arguably the best Ukraine specialist out there, Rostislav Ishchenko.

Ishchenko goes into a lot of interesting details and explains what “Biden” apparently just did. Frankly, the Germans richly deserve this full-spectrum mess and they will be dealing with the consequences of this disaster for a long time, possibly decades. In fact, the Germans are stuck: they want to be the Big European Leader? Let them. After all, the EU politicians, led by Germany, did all they could to create what is now often called “country 404” – a black hole in the heart of the European continent. Germany is the biggest economic power of the EU? Good, then let the Germans (and the rest of the EU) pay for the eventual reconstruction of the Ukraine (or of the successor-states resulting from the breakup of the country)! Russia simply cannot foot that bill, China most definitely won’t (especially after being cheated several times by the Ukies) and the USA has absolutely no reasons whatsoever to do so. I would even argue that chaos (social, economic, political, cultural. etc.) in Europe is probably seen by the US ruling class as highly desirable since it 1) weakens the EU as a competitor 2) justifies, however hypocritically and mistakenly, a “strong US presence” in Europe and 3) gives NATO a reason (however mistaken, misguided and even immoral) to exist

The US is protected from the fallout (immigrants, violence, extremism, etc.) of the Ukrainian disaster by distance, the Atlantic, a much stronger military (at least compared to anybody else in NATO). The US can print money in any way it wants and has no interests whatsoever in the (dying) Ukraine. If Ishchenko is right, and I agree with him, then there is somebody (possibly a group of somebodies) who is a lot smarter than anybody in the Trump Admin and who figured out that the Nazi-occuppied Ukraine should be an German/EU problem, not one for the US.

There is, of course, also the pessimistic analysis: the US is on the retreat everywhere, but only for the following reasons:

Regroup, reorganize, buy time to develop some kind of coherent strategy

Focus on each adversary separately and prioritize (divide et impera at least!)

Re-analyze, re-plan, re-design, re-develop, re-train, re-equip and re-test pretty much everything in the US armed forces (which have not been shaped by any rational force planning in decades)

Those who believe the strategic retreat theory (I am not personally discounting this version, but I do not see enough evidence – yet – to endorse it either) typically add that “the US only left Afghanistan to hand it over to the Taliban/al-Qaeda and unleash them against “soft underbelly of Russia”. Now, that is utter nonsense, if only because Russia does not have a common border with Afghanistan.

…

Coming back to “Biden’s” great retreat: if “Biden” is smart enough to hang the Ukraine on Germany, “he” is probably too smart to predicate the US foreign policy towards Russia predicated around the “soft underbelly” thingie. As for all the “fire and brimstone” threats of war against Russia, they are not impressing anybody as the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians know that a confident and powerful country does not need to threaten anybody, if only because the actual capabilities of these country are a very telling “threat” by themselves. But when a former superpower is weak, confused and frightened, it will make many roaring statements about how it can defeat the entire planet if needed (after all, the US military is “the best military in the history of the galaxy”! If you doubt that, just listen to Toby Keith!). In other words, while in the West threats are an instrument of foreign policy, in Russia, and in the rest of Asia, they are inevitably seen as a sign of weakness, doubts and even fear.

Then there seems to be a long list of weapons systems, procurement plans and “defense” monies which have been pulled back, including the (truly awful) LCS and F-35. While it is true that the US is gradually phasing out fantastically expensive weapons systems and platforms which were also more or less useless, this show the ability to at least admit that all that talk about super-dooper US superweapons was just that, talk, and that in reality the US MIC is incapable of producing the kind of superb high quality systems which it used to produce in large quantities in the past (Arleigh Burke, F-15, Jumbo 747, the Willys Jeep, F-16, A-10, Los Angeles SSN, KH satellites, etc.). This is why the F-15X is designed to “augment” the F-35 feet (by itself a very smart move!).

Such an admission, even if indirect and only logically implied, might show a level of maturity, or courage, by “Biden” which his predecessors did not have.

Could it be that the folks at the Pentagon, who do know the reality of the situation (see here for a very good Moon of Alabama article about this), figured out that Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump vastly over extended the Empire and now they need to regroup and “re-everything” to achieve a more sustainable “defense” posture?

Could it be that “Biden” will deliver what Trump promised, i.e. to end the useless (and unwinnable!) wars, stop caring too much about the agonizing EU, silently accept that Russia has no intentions (and no need!) whatsoever to attack anyone and focus on the biggest non-military threat out there: China. Maybe.

As far as I know, many (all?) simulations – by RAND and the US military – and command staff exercises have shown that the US would lose badly to both Russia or China. Could it be that “Biden” wants to put Russia and China on the backburner and “deal” with Iran first? The latest news on the US/Israel vs Iran front is not good, to say the least.

…

So what are we left with?

Frankly, I am not sure.

I think that there is very strong, even if only indirect, evidence which there is some very serious in-fighting taking place in the “Biden” administration and there is also strong, but also indirect, evidence that the military posture of the United States is undergoing what might end up being a major overhaul of the US armed forces.

If true, and that is a big “if”, this is neither good news nor bad news.

But this might be big news.

Why?

Because, objectively, the current US retreat on most fronts might be the “soft landing” (transition from Empire to “normal” country) many Trump voters were hoping for. Or it might not. If it is not, this might be a chaos-induced retreat, indicating that the US state is crumbling and has to urgently “simplify” things to try to survive, thereby generating a lot of factional infighting (at least one Russian observer specialized in “US studies”, Dmitrii Drobnitskii, believes to be the case: see the original article here, and its machine translation here). Finally, the state of decay of the US state might already be so advanced that we can consider it as profoundly dysfunctional and basically collapsing/collapsed. The first option (soft landing) is unlikely, yet highly desirable. The second option (chaos-induced retreat) is more likely, but much less desirable as it is only a single step back to then make several steps forward again. The last option (profoundly dysfunctional and basically collapsing/collapsed) is, alas, the most likely, and it is also, by far, the most perilous one.

For one thing, options #2 and #3 will make US actions very unpredictable and, therefore, potentially extremely dangerous. Unpredictable chaos can also quickly morph into a major war, or even several major ones, so the potential danger here is very real (even if totally unreported in Zone A). This, in turn, means that Russia, China, Iran, the DPRK, Venezuela or Cuba all have to keep their guard up and be ready for anything, even the unthinkable (which is often what total chaos generates).

Right now, the fact that the US has initiated a “great retreat” is undeniable. But the true reasons behind it, and its implications, remain quite obscure, at least to me.

I will conclude by asking you, the readers, for your opinion: do you think that the US is currently in a “contraction phase”? If yes, do you believe that this is a short-term only phenomenon, or will this retreat continue and, if yes, how far?

[broth-y]

Gundham Tanaka’s Perfect Plan

kazuichi souda/gundham tanaka

alternatively: How to Spend the Rest of Your Life With the Boy of Your Dreams.

a/n: this is for day seven of soudam week! i chose the wedding prompt and kinda messed with it. if you've been paying attention, i only participated in 4/7 days, but i had to prioritize quality over quantity. i procrastinated. i think the proposal itself is cliche, but it doesn't even bother me because i am happy with this piece. i really hope that you guys like it!! 

AO3

“Kazuichi, have you fallen asleep yet?” Gundham’s words were quiet, as to not wake the boy in his arms if he had fallen asleep. Their bodies pressed together tightly.

“Not yet, why?” Souda murmured.

“I believe that an outing is long past due.”

“Huh?” He questioned, too tired to translate his boyfriend's words.

“I would like to go out to dinner with you soon.” Gundham had carefully calculated a plan, it was simply a matter of convincing Souda to join him.  

Kazuichi hummed, “we always get food on Fridays.”

Gundham’s hand found its way into his partner's hair. He twirled his fingers through it slowly. “I wish for something with more grandeur. Perhaps we could go somewhere lavish next Friday.”

“Fancy dinner on Friday? Sure, whatever ya want, we can dress up n’ everything.” He answered drowsily, laughing slightly.

“I would be greatly satisfied.” His plan was going exactly as he intended. Souda even added the idea to put on their best clothes, saving Gundham from having to persuade him.

“If we’re going somewhere fancy, you’re paying.”

“I would insist, my love.” Kazuichi yawned, “then it’s a date.” he was sluggish and Gundham knew it would be only mere moments before he fell asleep.

“Perfect.”  Tanaka intertwined their fingers together with his unoccupied hand. His request had gone ideally, everything he needed was ready. However, he was terrified.

-

The box resting in the pocket of Gundham's slacks seemed to weigh him down as if it were a brick instead. He stared at himself in the mirror. He knew that he would struggle to hide his uneasiness throughout the night.  Glancing at the clock, he realized their time to ready was running thin. “Souda, make haste. The reservation is in less than an hour.” He yelled to the boy in their adjacent bedroom.

“I’m tryin’. Can you come tie my tie babe?” Kazuichi asked.

“Yes, of course.” He walked into their bedroom, seeing Kazuichi with his shirt unbuttoned and tie thrown haphazardly around his neck. “You look dashing.” He smiled as he approached him.

“You too, but you might need a shirt to go out.” Souda laughed. His calloused hands wrapped around the bare torso of the taller.

Gundham nodded, carefully fixing Kazuichi’s collar. “I will dress soon.” He answered and decided not to mention the shameful amount of time he spent rethinking his arrangements while Souda was in the shower; time he could have used to get ready.

“Why did you wanna go out anyway?”

 He finished tying his partners vividly green tie. “Need I a reason? I wish to do something different, and I am honestly tired of pizza delivery.”

"Pizza delivery is good." Kazuichi responded, sticking his long tongue out towards the other man. "Your standards are just higher than mine."

"Touche." Gundham smirked as he walked to the closet. He removed his shirt, which he had ironed meticulously for the event, putting it on and buttoning it. As he reached for his own tie, he noticed Kazuichi, kneeling at the other side of the closet, and removing a pair of shoes. "Are those the shoes you will be wearing tonight?"

"Yeah, don't 'cha like 'em?" He asked, a pair of abrasively green shoes in hand. Kazuichi beamed, "They match my tie!"

"That is certainly a unique choice, my dear." Gundham chuckled as he adjusted his shirt.

The pair finished dressing, Gundham adding a vest and Kazuichi, a blazer.  He was left with one final request. Before they headed out, on foot, Gundham turned to his boyfriend. "Would you like to get ice cream after dinner? Our usual spot is close to where I made our reservations. Perhaps we could go to the park, as normal?"

"The park where you took me on our first date, for sure babe. You know how much I love ice cream." He answered, seemingly pleased.

All was set in motion. It was simply time for Gundham to go through with it.

-

“The waitress said my shoes and tie were cool, she totally liked them! I knew that somebody would.” Kazuichi grinned and licked happily at his chocolate ice cream, coated in sprinkles. They were walking, free hands intertwined, through the twilit park.  

Gundham laughed, “You seem to be implying that I do not.”

“You insulted them at home, Gundy.” He joked.

Tanaka scoffed in response, “I said they were unique, which was not an insult. I love your eccentric accessories.”

“Well, thank you.” Kazuichi stood on his toes to place a quick kiss on his partner’s face.

“You are very welcome.” Gundham noted the quick darkening of the sky as the sun set. He finished his dessert and knew his partner would soon follow suit. The persistent butterflies in his stomach began thrashing once again and he prerpared himself for what was to come.

"Do you wanna sit down for a few minutes, then probably head home?" Souda asked, nodding to a bench just meters up the path.

"I can agree to that." He nodded. Kazuichi demolished the remains of his ice cream, as they walked. He threw a napkin in a nearby garbage can upon their arrival.  

They lowered onto the bench together, Kazuichi finding a comfortable place, snuggled under Gundham's arm. Silence fell over the pair. Curious fingers ran across Gundham's thigh, fingertips rubbing small circles. Kazuichi was typically one to busy his hands with something.

Gundham worried that his partner, pressed close to his chest, would hear his rapidly increasing heartbeat. He was about to ask a question that would change the course of his life, hopefully for the better. The thought terrified him, more than anything had before. The worst that could happen, would be Kazuichi denying him, it certainly wasn't welcoming for that to be a possibility.

They sat for a few minutes longer, words still yet to be exchanged. The nervousness occupied Gundham's mind far too much for conversation. The common comfort from close contact with his boyfriend, was not present in the moment. just sweaty palms and shaky breaths. Souda sat undisturbed, regardless. Gundham wondered how he had stayed quiet for so long; it was atypical of him not to make any comments.

The uncharacteristic behaviour was soon explained when he felt the smaller boy jerk upwards against his chest.

"Hnhm. I guess I started to fall asleep there." Kazuichi attempted a short laugh, and moved so he could sit up straight. He planted a kiss on his partner's cheek, before asking, "do you think we could go home soon Gundy? I love being here with you, but I'd rather fall asleep in our bed together, not a park bench."

Tanaka forced himself to grin smugly in response, "of course we can." He answered, knowing that marked his time to begin.

Kazuichi rose from the bench, stretching where he stood. After a final deep breath, Gundham lifted himself off the seat and reached his arm out to his partner, who had just turned away. “Before we leave, I have a gift for you.” He blurted.

“A gift?” Kazuichi questioned, turning to look at the other with his eyebrows raised, “What for?”

Gundham didn’t answer, just shuffled in his pocket to retrieve the small box that had burnt a hole there throughout the night. Holding it concealed in one hand, he took his partner's hand with the other. “Kazuichi, I mean not to be cliche, but the years we have spent together have been my favourite of them all. My love spans wider than what is comprehensible to most. I am a man of many words, so let me make this brief.” He smiled smugly as he detached their hands to present the simple ring to Kazuichi.

“I must know, will you marry me?”

Bright tears quickly welled in Souda’s eyes as he realized what was happening. Gundham felt the weight of the other boy press against him as he collapsed into him, his hands grabbing desperately at the back of Gundham’s jacket.

Gundham moved his arms that had been awkwardly sandwiched between them, stuffing the ring box back in his pocket, as he wrapped his arms around his partner. He interrupted the unintelligible sobs coming from beneath him, “There is no need to cry, my love.”

“Of course I’m gonna cry!” Kazuichi sniffled as he lifted his head to meet the other’s eyes. “You just — you just asked me to marry you!”

Gundham placed the shorter boy’s face in the strong grip of both hands. He ran his thumbs gently under Kazuichi’s eyes, wiping away his tears. “Yes, I did. And you still have yet to answer.”

“Of course I’ll fuckin' marry you, get down here." He said, still weak and sobby. He pulled on Gundham's collar, bringing their lips together in a soft kiss.

Months of well suppressed anxiety flowed from Gundham's mind as they met. He relaxed his tensed muscles and held his lover tighter than ever before. They kissed, and he relaxed, knowing that he had won the only person worthy of spending his life with.

Tanaka disconnected their lips to speak, touching their foreheads together instead, "Lest I forget, you have not received your ring." He once again removed the ring from his pocket and presented it to Kazuichi. "I hope you are pleased with it."

The box displayed a wide silver band with a rectangular stone inset in the center. Kazuichi gushed, "How couldn't I be? I love it. I'll have to try not to lose it, between the shop and everywhere else."

He removed the ring from the box, finally and carefully sliding onto the other's finger. A long awaited task indeed. "I request that you keep it in your sights, at least until the wedding."

"Wedding — the wedding!" He beamed, detaching their foreheads as he jumped back, ever so slightly. "We're getting married, Gundham! It didn't even sound real, until you said it."

Gundham couldn't suppress the smile rising in his face from his partner's reaction, "I understand how you feel. It is quite foriegn."

“You — the guy who was Mr. Overlord, incapable of mortal emotions — you asked me to marry you! We’re gonna get married!” Kazuichi grinned. Gundham wondered if it was possible for a person to smile any wider.

“We are.”

“I can’t believe it. I love you so much.”

“I love you too, Kazuichi.” He replied, pulling him close for yet another kiss, entirely unable to believe it either.

[library-with-tales]

Bungou Stray Dogs Band AU that I spontaneously came up with like a second ago.

Based off the mobile game if you haven’t noticed. Someone probably already thought of this buuuuut I like my idea so here we go:

World setting

Port Mafia, Armed Detective Agency and The Guild are music agencies while the other smaller groups are just bands (haven’t read manga yet but I’m aware there are other groups). The Special-too-long-of-a-name people are the big boy cooperation (I am so uneducated with the music world why do I do this to myself).

Port Mafia are filled with talented people yes, but they have the habit of straining the music artists sometimes (this will be relevant in a bit) and are more focused on the monz. If you want a reference, their music are on the same level as your good ol’ big pop groups, the real famous on the radio ones.

Armed Detective Agency (in this case they’re called Armed Music Agency, yes they are still armed) is a smaller agency since they prioritize quality and feelings over quantity and catchiness, which makes them pretty indie tbh, They have songs that don’t particularly appear on the radio a lot, if not, not at all. Though they’re talented all the same.

The Guild are basically the equivalent to K-pop and J-pop, not quite famous in Yokohama, but definitely famous enough to go on tour there.

Atsushi’s arc

There were a few ideas for him (music school was in the draft but I dunked it faster than I pulled it up) but it boils down to one thing: Atsushi accidentally becomes a famous singer from an old video he made when he wasn’t fully into music yet. He, being the oblivious guy he is, suddenly starts gaining fans and is beyond confused yet appreciates it very much.

Though not sure why people are calling him the Beast below The Moonlight (Plot twist, you big stupidhead, that was the title of the old song you made). He goes along with it though, calling himself Moon Tiger, which is so him honestly.

Anyways it’s not Dazai if he doesn’t try to drown himself so while Atsushi’s vibing by the open canal he just sees him. Like canon, Atsushi saves Dazai. But the thing about Atsushi is; he’s camera shy and most of his videos have him covering his face and out of camera view, so Dazai doesn’t immediately recognize him as the famous youtube singer.

As thanks, Dazai treats Atsuhi to dinner with Kunikida, and Dazai has a hunch that Atsushi is Moon Tiger so they start a small convo about it. Atsushi’s all; “ERRRRMMMMMMM” and he wants to leave until:

“Y’know, whoever Moon Tiger is, I’d totally pay a lot of money to hear him sing.” Dazai hums. Kunikida kinda agrees to this, saying how talent like his shouldn’t come totally for free. Atsushi doesn’t ask for donations or get youtube money (because he dunno how :( ) so he’s almost flat broke, and this kinda perks his interest.

“Actually, uh, I kinda know Moon Tiger. I didn’t want to bring it up because I thought you’d ask for autographs or something ha ha. I agree with the paying part.” Atsushi you’re low key greedy ngl, Pre-Bullshit Atsushi was greedy. Money-eyed hoe. “If you want I can get you to meet him, but he won’t wanna show his face so it’s gotta be somewhere he can hide himself while still being able to sing.”

“Done!” Dazai holds his hand out like it’s some sort of deal. “I know a place.”

I’m sorry Dazai, but I’m not smart or sexy as you, so I don’t know the place. Let’s go with the regular canon spot, yeah? And Dazai listens while Atsushi sings behind a big crate and when Atsushi is done, he expects money but he gets a thunderous applause instead and suddenly his identity is revealed and everyone is clapping and staring at him super amazed.

And Atsushi faints from being too overwhelmed. 

Anyways, things happen, some parts are alike to canon, some parts aren’t. Atsushi’s main goal in this AU is to get over his terrible stage fright while simultaneously trying to avoid clashing with Port Mafia, who at first, wants to recruit him before he fully signs the contract with AMA.

I don’t know how battles would work in this, but they happen.

Dazai’s backstory

So my man Dazai amirite?

Not a surprise, he used to be under Port Mafia. At some point he does numerous collabs with free lancer Chuuya because Chuuya’s little sheep band had an issue with copyright with Port Mafia (oops). 

Onto the main course though: Odasaku.

Ango is in charge of Oda and Dazai, who usually does music together because they’re friends (hurray). But Oda had long gave up on doing vocals because his throat just couldn’t handle it, he much prefers writing music and Dazai doesn’t mind because he never has extremely big ideas anyways.

A clash with Mimic happens and Mori’s all: We need more music we need to stay number one. And so -I dunno how- he forces Oda to finally use his voice to sing via Ango’s persuasion.

Oda completely loses his voice in the end, like he completely damaged it, and he can’t handle the music industry anymore so he leaves. And Dazai’s all: “Don’t go please.”

And Oda writes on his phone and holds it out for Dazai, “This agency. It doesn’t care much for music, does it? I used to sing because I liked singing, because there were feelings in it. But slowly this agency stopped me from being able to do that. Dazai. Don’t you think you should sing with feelings too? You’ve never made an opinion on my ideas, is it because you can’t or you won’t?”

And Dazai realizes he only likes doing music because of the people around him, especially Oda, and now that Oda isn’t in Port Mafia anymore, it just isn’t the same. He’s been making music to grab people’s attention and not much because he wanted to. So he decides to change and switches agencies.

(His relationship with Akutagawa is as straining as canon; “I don’t care about how you made this dumb song, it’s not good enough! How will anyone want to listen to this crap?” Now Aku’s music are catchy and all but lacking in meaning.)

Other things

Yosano’s music is pretty rough, but it literally lets all the feelings out, so it becomes pretty nice. So you know that music that cures this and cures that? That’s Yosano’s music, except it’s really hardcore. I don’t know how she does it, she just does.

Kyouka is the daughter of two big music geniuses and is expected to be the same, so she gets an immediate acceptance into Port Mafia and it nearly breaks her until Atsushi meets her. During a concert or something -because in the end, Atsushi’s still the fan boy type- Atsushi goes up to Kyouka and asks if she’s okay and stuff.

“I’ve made 35 songs, but I can’t...hear my own voice, my own music...” Your Lie in April ref do not hunt me please. 

Ranpo is known to have serious in depth meaning behind his music, and a good 20% are just matryoshka songs (he gives out stuff if you find out if his song is an in depth meaning one or just nonsense that somehow speaks meaning while having no theme at all)

Poe’s are somewhat the same as Ranpo, except they’re more like stories to be honest, and his songs get numerous fan interpretation and so far, Ranpo always gets it right. The only one who ever does without missing a beat (ha ha got em.)

Debating if I should just make Kunikida an agent or a music artist that just likes writing songs rather than performing them.

Naomi could be an idol ngl but she’s not, she’s her brother’s number one fan! (She’s a secretary in the agency.)

Chuuya’s more famous for his pretty looks than his music at this point, but it doesn’t mean he’s a shit music artist though.

Higuchi is Aku’s agent.

Kenji’s songs are so happy and go-lucky it makes anyone listening to it feel pumped up. Hence his music are often used in AMVs or sports exercise (what a range!)

Yumeno’s music are those cursed type of songs that weren’t meant to be creepy or weird to begin with (e.g Tonight You Belong To Me, it’s an innocent song yet it can be taken as horror(?)) but end up becoming one anyways.

Dazai’s songs are so sad sometimes but they’re always upbeat. A weird yet perfect balance for his listeners.

That’s all I got! Honestly, don’t really know how to develop The Guild in this, maybe one day I will. 

[danksy-lives]

The Family Values Case For Abortion

Abortion and contraception are the greatest force for family values we have available.  Family planning gives parents more predictability over their lives, leading to better outcomes for their children.  Ironically, those who pride the importance of family the most are the least likely to use these tools to make a stable family.  This shows a failure to adapt one’s morality to the world in which they inhabit.

Stable families do not occur on accident, nor are they created by accidents.  They are the result of hard work between people looking to improve their futures.  Given the amount of time and effort this requires, they must be entered into voluntarily and thoughtfully, or not at all.  Basing a relationship around a child, who cannot contribute to this endeavor, and then expecting the proper conditions for childrearing to develop afterwards, is putting the cart before the horse.

With that in mind, the morality around creating families should reflect the best interests of any children being raised within them.  This means ensuring that the family unit is in place before it takes on children.  To pursue this goal, I propose two moral principles of reproduction:

1.    1. If someone is not actively seeking children, they must take precaution to prevent pregnancy.

2.     2. If a woman becomes pregnant by accident; or does not have a family in which to raise the child, she has a moral duty to abort the pregnancy.

On Trust

It can be difficult to speak of moral duties within a liberal framework.  There are few situations in which only one decision is considered valid and all others are considered immoral.

However, the belief that parents must work in the best interests of their children appears to be axiomatic among most (if not all) of the world’s cultures.  To most people, the best interest of the child is allowing them to thrive in the environment they will find themselves during adulthood and beyond.  The way in which the family is structured is (ideally) meant to acclimate the child to these various conditions.[1]

In high-trust societies, the most secure way of maintaining or improving your social standing is by building longstanding relationships with other people.  People who can trust those around them are better able to predict their own futures.  This leads to a more secure environment, where swords can be turned into plowshares.  In times of trouble, people can pool their resources to prevent damages and help others get back on their feet.  Under such circumstances, large social structures can be created through consent rather than mere coercion.  This model is as true of a small village as it is for a nation-state.

History of the Nuclear Family

The family structures that have developed and shown the most resilience in high-trust conditions are variations on the nuclear family.  Many conservative moralists believe that the nuclear family (or the sanctity of marriage, depending on the version) is the backbone upon which every other part of society relies.  I do not deny the nuclear family’s profound importance in our society.  After all, my thesis is meant to adapt the practice to the modern era.  I also understand where such an argument comes from.  Since children are raised in families, and those children go on to perpetuate society, it is easy to see families as building blocks for society.

Despite this, I must emphasize that conditions of trust with the wider society are a prerequisite for a nuclear family, and not the other way around.  If all a society had to do to convert itself from a low-trust to a high-trust system was to promote the practice, then we would expect it to spread to all societies on earth.  The prevalence of practices such as arranged marriages and polygamy in much of the world shows that this is not the case.  Where high-trust societies are found, variations on the nuclear family tend to develop naturally.

This becomes relevant when discussing how to promote successful family models.  Traditionally, this was done by forcing couples together into families at the earliest opportunity.  Whether or not they would be a good match for each other, let alone up to the task of raising children, was not the primary concern.  Where this was not done through forced marriage, social norms such as abstinence before marriage and that pregnant women should marry their child’s father served to direct young people towards the institution.  Within it, prohibitions on practices such as sodomy, contraception, and abortion meant that pregnancies occurred frequently and unexpectedly.  When such norms are adhered to, family planning is not possible, meaning most children will be accidents.

This social system is designed to prioritize the quantity of children over the quality of their rearing.  If your stated goal is to be fruitful and multiply in the name of some religion or ideology, then adhering to it makes sense.  Such reasoning is not meant for the benefit of the children or even the parents.  It exists to use the resulting children to spread whichever meme motivates the behavior.  The logic is internally consistent, but by its design, is not in the best interest of the children being produced.  If this reasoning is acceptable to its supporters, then dissuading them is outside the scope of this essay.  However, it cannot be argued that creating children for a larger purpose they cannot freely choose promotes any enlightened form of family values.

 The biggest flaw of the system, however, is that it seeks to create stability without allowing potential parents the autonomy that allows them to build trust.  Any marriage based on lust rather than logic can be expected to fail.

This problem was done away with the creation of teenager as a separate stage of development.  By allowing partial autonomy in certain matters, teens can work through their worst impulses before they would have serious effects on their futures.  By allowing them to make and learn from mistakes, their future decisions become more informed.  When your peers have all gone through this process, your entire society becomes more trustworthy.  These high-trust conditions are what make the nuclear family possible and desirable, all without the need of rigid social norms.  In the short time this has been accepted, it has proven a better guide to the young than conservative moralizing ever had.

Family Planning

The new trust afforded towards the young has translated into more trust for adults.  This has developed into the idea that what goes on in the bedroom of consenting adults should not be interfered with.  Because this has become a cliché, it is worth noting that this state of affairs is historically unprecedented for those outside the upper class.  As such, it has not had the time to be intellectually explored to the same degree as the old system.

One example of this is how sexual freedom and the freedom to plan a family are conflated.  This is a result of relying on traditional modes of thought.  Before the advent of contraception, this conflation made sense.  However, modern advances have separated sex from reproduction.  Our philosophy should adapt to this development.

Abortion and the Family

Abortion is both always present and a lingering taboo.  Most people will acknowledge its availability as good or at least necessary.  However, when a woman considers whether to terminate her own unwanted pregnancy, it is treated as a matter of grave importance.

This duality is embodied by the position of someone who is pro-choice but would never terminate an unwanted pregnancy of their own.  The reasons for this are hardly discussed before a pregnancy.  However, mothers-to-be often develop a gut feeling that they have a moral duty to the fetus, even if they had never wanted a child.  This should stand out as odd coming from someone who is pro-choice.  The idea that parents have an unconditional obligation to their unborn children is the cornerstone of the pro-life argument against abortion.  If these women feel their moral duty to their fetuses is logically founded, then any defense of abortion is a failure to protect children.  The fact that every year, hundreds of thousands of women in America come to the same logically inconsistent conclusion shows that the new morality has yet to be fully accepted.

While the desire to protect one’s fetus may be an innate part of pregnancy, it is not always moral.  This desire is an evolutionary holdover from before we could plan our families.  It reflects a time when any given child had a slim chance of reaching adulthood and propagating the species.  Under those circumstances, having as many kids as you could was not a matter of morality, but one of social security.  Humans, having the longest childhoods of any animal species, have the most to lose when their children die.  Therefore, accepting any pregnancy that came a woman’s way was a necessity.

Accidents Happen (But They Shouldn’t)

Spelling out the psychology behind these decisions makes them all the more jarring in the modern world.  The march of medical technology has made infant mortality a negligible concern for the first time in history.  We now have the stability to prepare our lives for any children we raise.  I find it troubling that this fact has not been fully accepted.

If this were fully internalized, Americans would not live in a society where half their peers exist on accident.  Each of these people has an early childhood that their parents (or parent, in some instances) had to cobble together in a few months.  Considering the importance of the first four years to childhood development, this instability cannot be understated.   How much stress does this cause the parents?  More importantly, how much do those stressed out parents adversely affect the newborn child?

These questions all assume that the parent(s) are putting their best effort into childrearing.  That is not always the case, especially with fathers.  While it takes two to tango, potential fathers do not have the same biological urge to protect the fetus they helped to make as mothers.  If a man creates an unwanted pregnancy, and he is pro-choice (or is anti-abortion and a hypocrite), it follows that he would want the woman to have an abortion.  If this conflicts with the mother’s desire to birth the fetus and raise the child, the man has no recourse to take.  If he abandons the mother and child, he will forever be considered a deadbeat father.  In addition, he can and most likely will be forced to pay child support for the next 18 years, a practice which can financially cripple the man while failing to provide the child with the support of a second parent.  Rather than ruin their reputations and finances, most men choose to stay together despite the disagreement.  While this provides the child with a second parent, it does not eliminate the difference in values which created the dilemma.  The father will still feel that he is dedicating his time to a child he did not want to create.  This will reflect poorly to the mother, who will feel that he is not pulling his weight in the family.  As the child ages, they will begin to pick up on this simmering resentment, which they will probably blame on their own existence, creating psychological wounds which may never heal.

These situations and the lost potential they cause are each a preventable tragedy.  As such, they should be presented and discussed through this lens.  I find it distasteful to romanticize those who govern their lives around the fact that someone once failed to pull out.  Just as bad are those who insist they or others marry their partner in pregnancy for the sole benefit of giving the child two parents.  These beliefs are products of an antiquated age which the modern world forgot.

What is Life?

The sense of duty that mothers feel towards their fetuses cannot be erased, but if needed, it can be combatted by appealing to the best interest of all relevant parties.

The first step towards this is to determine who the relevant parties are.  It goes without saying that a mother is a relevant party to her own pregnancy.  In cases where the father is socially or financially responsible for the raising of the potential child, he should be considered a party to this matter.

The point that is the hardest to pin down is whether the fetus itself is a relevant party in the situation (and if so, at what point).  To answer this, many fields of thought have proposed starting points for when life begins.  If it can be proven that the organism/fetus/baby is human, it follows that it should be protected as other humans are.  By establishing when this happens, it would follow that it is when the organism/fetus/baby crosses the Rubicon into our moral community.

In the Overton Window of American society, these answers range from life beginning at conception to life beginning at birth.  Most people believe that life begins at some point during pregnancy.  I find most of these positions to be lacking in substance.

To explain why consensus is so hard to find on this issue, we should step back from ideology and look at the question of when life begins through the lens of biology.  From this approach, the only starting point for life is the abiogenesis some 3.5 billion years ago.  All of the world’s life exists from an unbroken chain of that first source.  Nowhere in the timeline between abiogenesis and any human currently alive is there a point where their ancestors weren’t living organisms.  Using this as our criteria, every living thing that holds human DNA is itself human.  Not only does this cover all fetuses, it also extends to the sperm and eggs that combine to create them.  Such a broad definition of life may be scientifically correct, but it is unfit for purpose in the present question on morality.  If this were taken seriously, every time a man masturbates would be an act of genocide wiping out millions of lives.  Similarly, every time a woman menstruates, she would be inflicting climate change on the ovulating eggs, since her uterus is the only natural environment they can survive in.   No reasonable moral Rubicon should accuse everyone of reproductive age of homicide.

Since it is now shown that the question of when life begins is a proxy for the question of when someone joins our moral community, I will be focusing on the question of the moral Rubicon.

The belief that life begins at conception takes the idea that anything containing human DNA is human but narrows the definition to the products of two people procreating.  Since this only happens during conception, this becomes their starting point for human life.  It is worth noting that the definition above does not originate with the argument itself, but was introduced later as DNA became widely understood.  Its origins are with the Catholic Church, who believed that all their congregants must follow the commandment to “be fruitful and multiply”.  Since conception creates a potential Christian, any attempt to terminate the pregnancy sets back what they consider to be their holy mission.  While this reasoning is no longer explicit, it has been widely adopted by the Abrahamic Religions as a way of protecting future children (and therefore expanding their potential congregations).  This belief is an extension of the traditionalist view of marriage and family.   As such, it gives little regard for the individuals who are affected by its notion of the greater good.  The system’s proponents have tried to reconcile this contradiction by personifying the unborn.  This has led to mixed results.  This standard is based on and requires an outside force to root out the individual’s reproductive control, with no concern for either parent or the child.  As such, it cannot coexist with any society based on individual rights and freedoms.

The most common standard of when someone joins our moral community is that it occurs at some point during the pregnancy.  In America, the standard for when this happens is at the end of the second trimester.  Other nations use a variety of cut-off dates.  The reason for the various dates is that zygote/fetal development is a largely amorphous process.  While there are many descriptions of developments on a weekly basis, none on these change the fact that a fetus functions as an organ within the woman’s body, rather than an independent lifeform.  Attempts to categorize stages of pregnancy such as the trimester system exist purely for the health of the mother.  For this reason, using it as the standard of American legal precedent, as in Roe v. Wade[2], is entirely arbitrary.  Such a standard exists to be easily understood, not to be logically defended.  I recognize the role of this ruling and others like it in providing access to safe abortions.  However, this moral Rubicon does not hold up to philosophical or biological scrutiny.  For this reason, it is the least defensible of these categories.

The last standard is that the fetus does not join our moral community until it is born.  While this seems outlandish to many Americans, it is already the standard used in various countries, including our northern neighbor.  The reasoning behind this standard is largely the same as for allowing abortion at all; A pregnancy is a personal matter which outside forces have no right to control.  Even if one believes that the unborn have some moral weight, this is outweighed by the mother’s right to bodily autonomy.  Therefore, this position states that abortion should be available at all times with the same readiness that current law provides to early pregnancies.

My Moral Rubicon

Given the way these standards are laid out, you might expect me to say which of these Moral Rubicons are correct.  Given my earlier criticism of Conservative moralizing on the family, you might expect me to say that fetuses have no moral worth until their birth.  While I support the idea that abortion should be available at all times during a pregnancy, I do not believe that a zygote/fetus only has moral worth after birth.

My standard for when a zygote/fetus enters our moral community is whether the mother intends to raise it as a member of our moral community (i.e. give birth).

If the mother chose to become pregnant and wishes to raise the child, then she and those around her will consider the future child to be part of their moral community as soon as they are aware of it.  In this case, the Moral Rubicon happens at the earliest point where its existence can be known, which is conception.  This is why pregnant and expectant mothers are given a long list of prohibitions for the protection of their unborn.  When one accepts guardianship over the baby on board, they willingly change their behavior for their child’s sake.

Contrast this with an unexpected and/or unwanted pregnancy.  If the mother has no desire to bring the pregnancy to term, her autonomy over her body means she should not be forced to do so.  If a child is not and will never come to term, it is not part of our moral community.

These two standards exist because of how differently people react to pregnancies depending on circumstance.  The idea of a mother overjoyed to raise her child in a loving family is a far cry from discovering she was impregnated by her rapist.  Acting as if the moral relationship between the mother and child is the same in both scenarios is an absurd oversimplification.

These absurdities are avoided by basing the Moral Rubicon on the intentions of the mother.  The fetus is one of us the first time their mother falls in love with them (or when they are born, whichever is sooner).  A love-based standard of moral worth would protect bodily autonomy while recognizing the value of future persons.[3]

As for policy, I advocate for the removal of all restrictions on abortion.  When accepting bodily autonomy as a goal, you cannot create a cutoff point at which one’s body exists to serve a life outside their moral community.  When a person requests an abortion, this would be their justification.

The Consensual Family

A moral family exists for the benefit of its members.  The details of this change depending on the morality of those running it.  As discussed earlier, in most places at most times in history, the father was the ruler of the family.  His centralized power meant that the effectiveness of the family was measured by his success.  This was created by the belief (and fact) that order and obedience were the surest traits for success in premodern societies.

As the trait which brings the most success moves from obedience to openness to change, families have adapted by giving their members more autonomy.  The effectiveness of the family is now measured in its benefit to its individual members.  If those members don’t have their interests served, they have the means of leaving it.  If a spouse feels their partner has not pulled their weight, they may divorce them.  When children outgrow the benefits of living with their parents, they are free to make their own way.  They have no obligation to serve their parents, despite the immense costs their parents put into raising them.  In the case of minors, the state will take over their guardianship if the family is abusing or neglecting them.  The goal of such systems is that family is a consensual arrangement.

This goal of informed consent should be expanded to the creation of children.  Just as the mother should have final word on controlling her body, the father must have a say in his relationship to the products of his body.  At present, the time when the mother can sever legal ties to her potential offspring extends from copulation to when her society deems the fetus to be part of their moral community.  The window for men starts and ends with ejaculation.  The only foolproof way for them to avoid the responsibility of raising an accidental child is to not have sex in a vagina.  This works about as well as promoting abstinence always does(n’t).  Such a standard makes no sense in an age where sex and reproduction have been decoupled.  In practical terms, the father must be made aware of the birth of his child well in advance.  If he did not intend to reproduce, he must have legal recourse to sever his responsibility to the child before it is born.  Without such protections, men are as liable for unwanted pregnancies as women in societies which believe that life begins at conception.

Making informed consent a cornerstone of the family has benefits beyond control of parental duties.  The informed consent of parents serves the best interests of their children.  Even though minors are not capable of providing it themselves, being raised in such an environment means their familial relations exist from a point of trust rather than one of obedience.  Just as bans on arranged marriage and access to divorce increase trust between spouses, a policy of deliberate reproduction, as well as child protection laws strengthen trust between parent and child.  When equipping a child for life in a high-trust society, the ability to trust in others is one of the most important skills they can have.  Therefore, creating the environment for this behavior should be a top priority.[4]

The existence of informed consent between spouses does not guarantee trust between them and their children.  Such conditions require that the creation of the child be as intentional as the creation of marriage.  If mutual trust is a cornerstone of our society and being born on accident irrevocably damages their ability to trust others, then bringing a person into the world on accident is inherently immoral.  If the parents had the means of preventing this but didn’t, it is a selfish act as well.  Any deviation is a failure of parenting.

Afterword

This idea begs the question of where the Accidents among us fit into this moral framework.  My fear is that this will be compared to the Conservative moralizing I denounced.  While I too seek stable families for children’s growth, my reasoning is adapted to the reality of ever-present contraception.  It is based on the benefit of individuals rather than the collective or a higher power.  These individuals are judged on their character and actions, not how they fit into a greater framework.

This blank slate of moral standing applies to accidents as to anyone else.  They come into the world untainted by their parent’s mistakes.  As such, the child shares neither their shame nor esteem.  This is true even if the mistake in question led to their existence.  Passing the guilt of parents onto their children is not only meanspirited, it undermines the Liberal framework my thesis is based on.  As such, I oppose any moral distinction between accidents and others.

Another accusation I expect to hear is that I believe that it would be better that a currently living accident were never born.  This argument is moot.  As discussed above, I believe that children unwanted by their mothers do not enter our moral community until they are born.  If they are aborted, they have no rights or interests to protect.  Conflating the moral worth of those outside the moral community with those who have entered it is to misunderstand the concept.  Those outside the community have no human rights, and we act in their interest at our leisure.  When one enters the community, they gain those human rights, as befits any human.  However, that does not mean that their human rights retroactively apply before that point.

To illustrate the point, I propose a scenario.  Hypothetically, if a person had a dog which they treated like any dog, and then it was magically turned into a human with human intelligence, would the owner be at fault for treating a human like an animal?  If the new human remembered being treated like a dog, would it be logical for them to be bitter about their previous treatment?  In both cases, the answer is no.  Humans and animals are treated by different moral standards because humans are sentient, and animals are not.  If an animal somehow entered the moral community of humans, they would be entitled to the human rights of anyone else.[5]  At the same time, people who interacted with the dog before the transformation cannot be at fault for putting it in the logical moral category.  Provided the former dog is treated as an equal of other humans, no wrong has been committed.

Dogs, like the fetus discussed above, are not part of our moral community.  Their interests, if considered at all, are subservient to those of humans.  These facts are irrelevant to what they might become later on.

Anyone who crosses the moral Rubicon holds the same inalienable moral worth as any human.  What they were or how they were treated before doesn’t matter.  My belief that the fetus in question should have been aborted has no bearing on whether or not the person it grows up to be would be better off unborn.  I would never hold that as a default position, even if I somehow knew a person was an accident before meeting them.

Footnotes

[1] The families that develop in any given environment are those whose children are best able to perpetuate its values.  The process by which society settles on a system has just as much to do with natural selection as it does with deliberate moralizing.

[2] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[3] This should not be conflated with the legal status of unborn children.

[4] One obvious scenario where parents cannot provide informed consent to childrearing is if one or both parents are too young to give informed consent.  In such cases, childrearing cannot be in the benefit of the child involved.  Therefore, minors should not be entrusted with the raising of children.  This is the same logic used to bar them from voting.  If you are not mentally equipped to be one decision-maker among millions in your nation, how can you be entrusted to be one decision-maker among two (at best) controlling the life of a fellow minor?  Such arrangements only exist because puberty does not correlate with the age of consent.  No one seriously believes that minors are capable of childrearing, only that they are stuck in their situation.  If it is recognized to be detrimental for all parties, it should not be created in the first place.

[5] It is worth noting the reverse situation is not true.  In stories where people are turned into animals, they are typically marked as separate from other animals and treated as a human wherever possible.  Despite the absurdity of the scenario, various traditions come to the same idea.  This shows the permanence of the moral Rubicon.  Once a person enters it, they are part of the moral community no matter what.