#we are *not* inherently better not more logical than animals

[just-a-little-unionoid]

that but also, I think the reason it could happen, one of them at least, like, why the people and all let it happen, is fundamentally just because people here angry and afraid and stressed and things like that so they went "yeah let's go there and kill a bunch of people that Are Not Us" like genuinely just a primal blowing off stream

there is no more logic behind it, there is no "good" reason, people think they need good logical reasons to do things so they get surprised when they do something retrospectively illogical but really sometimes you don't need to look much farther than primitive instinct

I missed most of the Iraq war due to being a baby, but every time I read about it I start wondering why we aren’t all talking about it all of the time

[physalian]

8 Signs your Sequel Needs Work

Sequels, and followup seasons to TV shows, can be very tricky to get right. Most of the time, especially with the onslaught of sequels, remakes, and remake-quels over the past… 15 years? There’s a few stand-outs for sure. I hear Dune Part 2 stuck the landing. Everyone who likes John Wick also likes those sequels. Spiderverse 2 also stuck the landing.

These are less tips and more fundamental pieces of your story that may or may not factor in because every work is different, and this is coming from an audience’s perspective. Maybe some of these will be the flaws you just couldn’t put your finger on before. And, of course, these are all my opinions, for sequels and later seasons that just didn’t work for me.

1. Your vague lore becomes a gimmick

The Force, this mysterious entity that needs no further explanation… is now quantifiable with midichlorians.

In The 100, the little chip that contains the “reincarnation” of the Commanders is now the central plot to their season 6 “invasion of the bodysnatchers” villains.

In The Vampire Diaries, the existence of the “emotion switch” is explicitly disputed as even existing in the earlier seasons, then becomes a very real and physical plot point one can toggle on and off.

I love hard magic systems. I love soft magic systems, too. These two are not evolutions of each other and doing so will ruin your magic system. People fell in love with the hard magic because they liked the rules, the rules made sense, and everything you wrote fit within those rules. Don’t get wacky and suddenly start inventing new rules that break your old ones.

People fell in love with the soft magic because it needed no rules, the magic made sense without overtaking the story or creating plot holes for why it didn’t just save the day. Don’t give your audience everything they never needed to know and impose limitations that didn’t need to be there.

Solving the mystery will never be as satisfying as whatever the reader came up with in their mind. Satisfaction is the death of desire.

2. The established theme becomes un-established

I talked about this point already in this post about theme so the abridged version here: If your story has major themes you’ve set out to explore, like “the dichotomy of good and evil” and you abandon that theme either for a contradictory one, or no theme at all, your sequel will feel less polished and meaningful than its predecessor, because the new story doesn’t have as much (if anything) to say, while the original did.

Jurassic Park is a fantastic, stellar example. First movie is about the folly of human arrogance and the inherent disaster and hubris in thinking one can control forces of nature for superficial gains. The sequels, and then sequel series, never returns to this theme (and also stops remembering that dinosaurs are animals, not generic movie monsters). JP wasn’t just scary because ahhh big scary reptiles. JP was scary because the story is an easily preventable tragedy, and yes the dinosaurs are eating people, but the people only have other people to blame. Dinosaurs are just hungry, frightened animals.

Or, the most obvious example in Pixar’s history: Cars to Cars 2.

3. You focus on the wrong elements based on ‘fan feedback’

We love fans. Fans make us money. Fans do not know what they want out of a sequel. Fans will never know what they want out of a sequel, nor will studios know how to interpret those wants. Ask Star Wars. Heck, ask the last 8 books out of the Percy Jackson universe.

Going back to Cars 2 (and why I loathe the concept of comedic relief characters, truly), Disney saw dollar signs with how popular Mater was, so, logically, they gave fans more Mater. They gave us more car gimmicks, they expanded the lore that no one asked for. They did try to give us new pretty racing venues and new cool characters. The writers really did try, but some random Suit decided a car spy thriller was better and this is what we got.

The elements your sequel focuses on could be points 1 or 2, based on reception. If your audience universally hates a character for legitimate reasons, maybe listen, but if your audience is at war with itself over superficial BS like whether or not she’s a female character, or POC, ignore them and write the character you set out to write. Maybe their arc wasn’t finished yet, and they had a really cool story that never got told.

This could be side-characters, or a specific location/pocket of worldbuilding that really resonated, a romantic subplot, whatever. Point is, careening off your plan without considering the consequences doesn’t usually end well.

4. You don’t focus on the ‘right’ elements

I don’t think anyone out there will happily sit down and enjoy the entirety of Thor: The Dark World.  The only reasons I would watch that movie now are because a couple of the jokes are funny, and the whole bit in the middle with Thor and Loki. Why wasn’t this the whole movie? No one cares about the lore, but people really loved Loki, especially when there wasn’t much about him in the MCU at the time, and taking a villain fresh off his big hit with the first Avengers and throwing him in a reluctant “enemy of my enemy” plot for this entire movie would have been amazing.

Loki also refuses to stay dead because he’s too popular, thus we get a cyclical and frustrating arc where he only has development when the producers demand so they can make maximum profit off his character, but back then, in phase 2 world, the mystery around Loki was what made him so compelling and the drama around those two on screen was really good! They bounced so well off each other, they both had very different strengths and perspectives, both had real grievances to air, and in that movie, they *both* lost their mother. It’s not even that it’s a bad sequel, it’s just a plain bad movie.

The movie exists to keep establishing the Infinity Stones with the red one and I can’t remember what the red one does at this point, but it could have so easily done both. The powers that be should have known their strongest elements were Thor and Loki and their relationship, and run with it.

This isn’t “give into the demands of fans who want more Loki” it’s being smart enough to look at your own work and suss out what you think the most intriguing elements are and which have the most room and potential to grow (and also test audiences and beta readers to tell you the ugly truth). Sequels should feel more like natural continuations of the original story, not shameless cash grabs.

5. You walk back character development for ~drama~

As in, characters who got together at the end of book 1 suddenly start fighting because the “will they/won’t they” was the juiciest dynamic of their relationship and you don’t know how to write a compelling, happy couple. Or a character who overcame their snobbery, cowardice, grizzled nature, or phobia suddenly has it again because, again, that was the most compelling part of their character and you don’t know who they are without it.

To be honest, yeah, the buildup of a relationship does tend to be more entertaining in media, but that’s also because solid, respectful, healthy relationships in media are a rarity. Season 1 of Outlander remains the best, in part because of the rapid growth of the main love interest’s relationship. Every season after, they’re already married, already together, and occasionally dealing with baby shenanigans, and it’s them against the world and, yeah, I got bored.

There’s just so much you can do with a freshly established relationship: Those two are a *team* now. The drama and intrigue no longer comes from them against each other, it’s them together against a new antagonist and their different approaches to solving a problem. They can and should still have distinct personalities and perspectives on whatever story you throw them into.

6. It’s the same exact story, just Bigger

I have been sitting on a “how to scale power” post for months now because I’m still not sure on reception but here’s a little bit on what I mean.

Original: Oh no, the big bad guy wants to destroy New York

Sequel: Oh no, the big bad guy wants to destroy the planet

Threequel: Oh no, the big bad guy wants to destroy the galaxy

You knew it wasn’t going to happen the first time, you absolutely know it won’t happen on a bigger scale. Usually, when this happens, plot holes abound. You end up deleting or forgetting about characters’ convenient powers and abilities, deleting or forgetting about established relationships and new ground gained with side characters and entities, and deleting or forgetting about stakes, themes, and actually growing your characters like this isn’t the exact same story, just Bigger.

How many Bond movies are there? Thirty-something? I know some are very, very good and some are not at all good. They’re all Bond movies. People keep watching them because they’re formulaic, but there’s also been seven Bond actors and the movies aren’t one long, continuous, self-referential story about this poor, poor man who has the worst luck in the universe. These sequels aren’t “this but bigger” it’s usually “this, but different”, which is almost always better.

“This, but different now” will demand a different skillset from your hero, different rules to play by, different expectations, and different stakes. It does not just demand your hero learn to punch harder.

Example: Lord Shen from Kung Fu Panda 2 does have more influence than Tai Lung, yes. He’s got a whole city and his backstory is further-reaching, but he’s objectively worse in close combat—so he doesn’t fistfight Po. He has cannons, very dangerous cannons, cannons designed to be so strong that kung fu doesn’t matter. Thus, he’s not necessarily “bigger” he’s just “different” and his whole story demands new perspective.

The differences between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are numerous, but the latter relies on “but bigger” and the former went in a whole new direction, while still staying faithful to the themes of the original.

7. It undermines the original by awakening a new problem too soon

I’ve already complained about the mere existence of Heroes of Olympus elsewhere because everything Luke fought and died for only bought that world about a month of peace before the gods came and ripped it all away for More Story.

I’ve also complained that the Star Wars Sequels were always going to spit in the face of a character’s six-movie legacy to bring balance to the Force by just going… nah. Ancient prophecy? Only bought us about 30 years of peace.

Whether it’s too soon, or it’s too closely related to the original, your audience is going to feel a little put-off when they realize how inconsequential this sequel makes the original, particularly in TV shows that run too many seasons and can’t keep upping the ante, like Supernatural.

Kung Fu Panda once again because these two movies are amazing. Shen is completely unrelated to Tai Lung. He’s not threatening the Valley of Peace or Shifu or Oogway or anything the heroes fought for in the original. He’s brand new.

My yearning to see these two on screen together to just watch them verbally spat over both being bratty children disappointed by their parents is unquantifiable. This movie is a damn near perfect sequel. Somebody write me fanfic with these two throwing hands over their drastically different perspectives on kung fu.

8. It’s so divorced from the original that it can barely even be called a sequel

Otherwise known as seasons 5 and 6 of Lost. Otherwise known as: This show was on a sci-fi trajectory and something catastrophic happened to cause a dramatic hairpin turn off that path and into pseudo-biblical territory. Why did it all end in a church? I’m not joking, they did actually abandon The Plan while in a mach 1 nosedive.

I also have a post I’ve been sitting on about how to handle faith in fiction, so I’ll say this: The premise of Lost was the trials and escapades of a group of 48 strangers trying to survive and find rescue off a mysterious island with some creepy, sciency shenanigans going on once they discover that the island isn’t actually uninhabited.

Season 6 is about finding “candidates” to replace the island’s Discount Jesus who serves as the ambassador-protector of the island, who is also immortal until he’s not, and the island becomes a kind of purgatory where they all actually did die in the crash and were just waiting to… die again and go to heaven. Spoiler Alert.

This is also otherwise known as: Oh sh*t, Warner Bros wants more Supernatural? But we wrapped it up so nicely with Sam and Adam in the box with Lucifer. I tried to watch one of those YouTube compilations of Cas’ funny moments because I haven’t seen every episode, and the misery on these actors’ faces as the compilation advanced through the seasons, all the joy and wit sucked from their performances, was just tragic.

I get it. Writers can’t control when the Powers That Be demand More Story so they can run their workhorse into the ground until it stops bleeding money, but if you aren’t controlled by said powers, either take it all back to basics, like Cars 3, or just stop.

—

Sometimes taking your established characters and throwing them into a completely unrecognizable story works, but those unrecongizable stories work that much harder to at least keep the characters' development and progression satisfying and familiar. See this post about timeskips that take generational gaps between the original and the sequel, and still deliver on a satisfying continuation.

TLDR: Sequels are hard and it’s never just one detail that makes them difficult to pull off. They will always be compared to their predecessors, always with the expectations to be as good as or surpass the original, when the original had no such competition. There’s also audience expectations for how they think the story, lore, and relationships should progress. Most faults of sequels, in my opinion, lie in straying too far from the fundamentals of the original without understanding why those fundamentals were so important to the original’s success.

[sugar-grigri]

The nail that sticks out gets hammered down

Guns, nails, katanas: I think it's interesting to read this title not just in terms of the chapter's construction, but as three notions serving the same idea, which is what we're going to develop. 

The chapter opens with the students, followers of the Church of Chainsaw Man, who don't really know what to do with their weapons. They weren't even aware that they had so many, which marks a continuity with the last chapter, when Nobana wasn't even aware that there were weapons.

Their reaction becomes the opposite when their superior gives them a reason to interpret the weapons differently - they're no longer guns in the hands of children, but a continuation of Chainsaw Man's message and power.

I think that's an easy interpretation to have, but it's one worth establishing for the sequel. The guns are only a third part of the reasoning, after all. 

When the fiend arrives on the scene, it's also interesting the moment and the way they's cut off. Strangely enough, the fire doesn't start until they begins to suggest that children shouldn't be holding weapons, as if someone wanted to prevent them from provoking an awakening of conscience. All symbolic, of course. 

I insist on the fact that the response of the weapons is instantaneous because in French the line is well cut (I read both versions because sometimes it helps me to have a re-reading on certain lines and I perceive better the indicators notably on the tone… And yes, you missed the fiend saying Ouh Là Ouh Là Là… )

The fiend seems to have a strong desire to protect children. Which gives us an idea of the demon they might embody. A common trait that could be given to fiends is that they are beings (and I say this with all the love I bear them) intellectually limited or rather who have a way of reasoning that is more animal and demonic (logical, they are demons they embody) than human.

Whether it's Power, who only reasoned through the prism of domination, or Beam, who considered himself Chainsaw Man's pupil and follower, the possessed reason strictly through hierarchy, or rather through a kind of food chain, which is typically bestial. 

Seeing what looks like a fiend, or even a devil, reasoning in terms of child protection induces the idea that they must have something to do with these children to reason in such an abstract way as child protection. 

Especially as it's something they embodies rather than understands themself, since they remains demonic, bashing in the skull of a child they themself wanted to protect, but had spoken to wrongly, as if this "lesson" were also part of his upbringing. 

That's why I interpret this fiend as harboring the devil of studies. Which is logical? It's one of the main fears of young people in particular, whether it's the choice of direction, exams, or even because it's related to the future, studies are a subject of anxiety. 

Particularly in a Japanese system in which the costs of studying are considerable, with university rankings that can be quite anxiety-provoking for high-school students. 

That's why this fiend is so revolted by the sight of children with weapons, and nails them to walls rather than brutally killing them all.

Moods and compassion are not necessarily inherent concepts in the fiends, even if they are capable of them, as we saw with Power.

But then again, if Power changed her behavior, it was only with regard to Denji and Aki, because they were part of her pack and her entourage, just like Meowy.

Sacrificing herself for Denji, even if she did in the end, was by no means obvious, hence the fact that there were several pages before her second death where she considered two options: her survival by helping Makima and her certain death to protect her brother. 

That's why the fiend's words are so strange and put me on the trail of the study demon.

Skull-hammering, or being overloaded with information and knowledge to be accumulated, is symbolized by this protruding brain. 

In the same way, the fact that the demon possessed has no eyes symbolizes the school system, whose aim is to develop students without actually seeing them. 

I was thinking about the hammer, but the title indicates that it's the nails we should be thinking about.

Hence the title of this analysis, which takes up a famous saying :

The nail that sticks out gets hammered down

Obviously, this saying alone cannot reflect the complexity of Japanese society, which is sometimes even used as a caricature by the Western media. 

Nevertheless, without falling into caricature, it symbolizes a simple idea: Japanese society, unlike Western society, puts the collective before the individual. 

This doesn't mean that the individual is completely erased, but that he is encouraged to consider his behavior from a more global angle, one that transcends himself. 

It's simply a saying that can be understood as advice: if you step out of line, you can expect to encounter more difficulties.

This is as true for a Japanese society as it is for a Western one. I'm not establishing any hierarchy of values.

Hence the nails, which freeze individuals where they belong. 

That's why this possessed person has an aversion to seeing students with guns: it's not just for protection, it's also for compartmentalization. Society doesn't give students the role of assailants; their role is to have a criterion in their hands. 

We continue with this superior, who also happens to be possessed by the demon of justice. His posture is not only interesting in that it's a completely instrumentalized justice in the sense that it puts children in danger for a better purpose, but it's above all the thesis of necessary evil, i.e. fighting evil with evil. 

If human morality were to be summed up, it would be through this maxim: preventing wars with wars, protecting like Chainsaw Man while endangering students - that's the whole human contradiction.

So, of course, the fiend find him vain when he argues that he is the best incarnation of justice.

It's typical of man to imagine himself superior to other species. 

We end on Katana, who arrives with a cutaway (which I loved) to declare that there's no justice with Chainsaw Man. 

So, in one line, we put back in place all the originality of this character, and I find it incredible. 

This line is both true and ironic!

True, because Chainsaw Man humiliated him by killing his grandfather, winning against him and beating his private parts with Aki to avenge Himeno. 

But above all, Katana Man has been brought up among the Yakuza, who he believes are governed by the same principles as his grandfather, to the point where he firmly clings to this position.

Katana Man hasn't evolved at all on this issue .

Ironic, given that Katana Man's grandfather was Denji's debt collector, the man who ended up ordering the overindebtedness and dismemberment of a child.

Indeed, Denji has no idea what justice is, for his life is profoundly unjust, whether it's being indebted for his father's misdeeds or dying prematurely. 

Above all, he doesn't take justice into his own hands; Denji didn't take revenge on Aki and Power with Makima, he saved her, just as he pursues his own personal goals of killing demons; they don't slaughter demons to bring justice to all those unjust deaths, he fights because they turn him on, he's an instrument, not a vigilante. 

What the chapter speaks to in these three themes is the whole paradox of protection, whether it's seeking justice through the church by sending children as gunpowder.

Whether it's trying to protect these children by enclosing them in a school system.

Whether it's protecting ideals that are unfounded. 

Once again we follow the analysis of the last time, public hunters choose weapons or possessions that limit the damage to the teenagers who constitute the nation's precious asset. The church uses children as a kind of barrier, not because they think they're good soldiers, but because they're moral barriers. So they send a possessed man convinced that he's protecting the children.

Or a weapon who thinks he still has a man's heart.

It's not just a clash between the two camps; it's also a battle for public approval.

Katana Man and Chainsaw Man are two sides of the same coin, the same story. While one has known a loving grandfather whom he loves so much that he closes himself off in denial (to the point of always refuting Denji's version that he murdered his grandfather as a zombie, even though the only legacy he left him was a zombie weapon), the other has known the monster and has therefore not internalized concepts such as love, compassion or justice.

Katana Man is a weapon who has been instrumentalized by the Yakuza, and is still deluding himself to find meaning in his existence, while Denji is one of the few weapons living strictly for himself at the moment.

He's the only one who truly follows his heart !

[lycanthropyreturned]

Human Emotions and Alterhumanity; Personal experiences and general discussion

First of all I wanted to apologize for my sudden absence, life is in full swing this fall and I am currently in the process of moving! While it's a fun step in my life, it's a time consuming one.

Now to the topic at hand. Alterhumanity has throughly impacted my life, not just through how I identify but how I perceive the world and others. This includes how I process my emotions and other's as well.

I have always questioned why I didn't understand certain things to human life. I have never found the fun in substances such as alcohol or drugs, I have never found myself attractive, and I have never understood the love that people have for man-made items.

While some of these can one-hundred percent be attributed to my neurodivergence, I also see my alterhumanity as a form of that. After all, my experiences with nonhumanity are mostly all psychological.

I was confused when people spoke about attractiveness, and when people talked about drinking and other activities. I was confused both as to why humans revere these things and why I- who unfortunately am inherently human- did not understand.

It was only recently in the past two years I realized why these things confused nor appeal to me. I am wired differently. I am wired on mother nature and the call of the wild, not the human nature of vain and technology.

And while I won't deny that there are times where I experience human nature- such as vain- it doesn't mean I understand them to their true extent. And that is because I am simply not human.

Think about it. Wolves don't find themselves physically attractive. They don't look into the reflection of the water and think "wow I'm looking good today". In fact they probably don't even understand their reflection at all. When I realized this, it just made too much sense to me. Of course I didn't understand all human natures, I am not one of them.

So what happens when a wolf experiences human emotions? No good thing, I'll tell you that. A lot of confusion and fear. It takes me longer than most to understand my own emotions, and to process them. At times this can put me into situations that are less than enjoyable, I won't deny that.

Human emotions are complicated. The human brain itself is fascinating, in which therianthropy and alterhumanity stem from that itself. It is genuinely so intriguing how the human brain can take such things and change someone's entire life with it. But with a little wolf brain- one designed to only the simplest of urges, these emotions can be overwhelming.

I've learned overtime to let myself have moments to process emotions much better. To get into the "human mind" portion of myself and to be logical. It takes time and effort, but in the end it does pay off. I won't lie and say I wish I was fully a wolf all the time- I enjoy the fact I am human most days, and have these experiences and opportunities. And that's alright.

When people say being non-human is so much more than an identity, it means things like this. It means not understanding the human world and facing it even when we don't want to. It means trying to learn and pick up on human cues- only mimicking because we are used to such simpler communications. It means looking at the world in such a different lense that no one else could begin to understand.

And that's one of the many beauties of alterhumanity, therianthropy, and all those labels. Not one person can have the same experience- and they are all accepted. I can talk to as many therians as I want and not one may have the same experience. The terms themselves are so vague in definition that it can encompass such a large category of people. And I find that fascinating and beautiful. It is one of the reasons why I still consider myself an alterhuman educator. The human mind- and non-human mind- fascinate and intrigue my animal nature.

While we are inherently physically and somewhat mentally human, the animal mind is within everyone. That animal mind that works on the simplest of urges and emotions, the one that gets overwhelmed at the complications of human life. And sometimes we have to learn from that animal mind, and that is more than okay. Sometimes the opposite applies to someone and they learn from their human mind, and that's also more than okay, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

I think that many folks in the community believe it's a bad thing to still inherently know they are human, which can lead these people down a more dangerous mental path. I believe that we need a balance within our lives, even if one outweighs the other- we still need moments in time where there is equality.

[skygemspeaks]

thoughts on episode 5:

when luffy returns fire on garp's ship, it was hilarious to see garp burst out into disbelieving laughter. i understand that they're leaning into the awful parent aspect of his character in this, but it's also funny seeing him unable to hide that he's actually a little proud of luffy. like hey, if you're going to be a pirate, at least you're a good one

the baratie is absolutely gorgeous! as soon as the first pictures came out last year, i was so excited to see it in person, and it did not disappoint. i especially love the little floating patios they have outside, as well as the floating docks. i would love to eat there!

mihawk is finally introduced! i love that we get to see him fighting off don krieg. i can understand why they would cut out krieg's part from the baratie arc, but as with other plot points they've cut out of the past few episodes, i like that they gave a little nod to it anyways. also, garp being the one to call mihawk on luffy gives a logical reason for mihawk to be at the restaurant on the same day as the straw hats, instead of it being an entire coincidence.

zoro and the others ribbing nami after sanji hits on her is hilarious, it feels so accurate to how actual friend groups behave. they're such children! sanji overall seems a lot more likable in this than he is in the manga, i really like him!

the scene where sanji and luffy are talking about the all blue and luffy invites sanji to join his crew is really sweet! sanji's already looking at luffy like he's head over heels for him, and that's one thing i think the cast captured really well - just how utterly adored luffy is by his crew.

when luffy tells zeff about sanji feeding Gin, and Zeff just smiles and says "he's a good kid" i just about melted. i love that he refuses to be nice to sanji's face, but is really unapologetically proud of his son behind his back.

koby's conversation with garp was well played out. i'm a little iffy about koby's character arc this season though. it seems like a good set-up for the doe-eyed, naive, kid who knows nothing about the world to realize that the organization he looks up to to protect the innocents of the world is nothing but a sham, and for him to go his own separate way, but we know that can't happen. i've always been of the opinion that koby would make a much better revolutionary than a marine tbh, and this series is bringing that out full force. but at the same time, i think i really like garp's message that yeah, the world isn't fair and it's so grating that they have to put up with the double standards inherent in a group like the seven warlords, but that at the end of the day they have to believe that the marines are doing more good by taking down dangerous pirates than the bad they're doing by turning around to the doings of the seven warlords. one piece has always done a good job at moral ambiguity, and it shows in the live action as well

also, another aspect of this conversation that i liked was garp explaining to koby that he could have been fleet admiral by now if he really wanted to, but that doing so would mean him having to compromise on his values (and for those of us who follow the manga/anime, we know that more specifically relates to taking orders from the celestial dragons), and that doing so would mean having to give up his freedom. it's a great line, because it calls back to luffy's attitude of being a pirate means having freedom. you can see that luffy and garp are both the result of taking the same ideology to different extremes. it's easy to see how they're related, and how garp's ideals had an impact as well, in the same way that shanks did.

"you could never fail me" 🥺🥺🥺 i like how iñaki played this scene. there's still a lot of room for him to grow as an actor, but i like him as luffy, and i can't wait to see his career after this. i hope we can get more seasons, so we can see him become the luffy he was always meant to be

[pencil-inc]

#6

I haven’t talked about the testing yet.

It's a mess. Looking back at it now it’s hard to sift through hard how much of it there was, at least in my head.

It was frayed with complication and constant self-improvement, interweaving ideas of theory and barely correlated statistics, stitched with moments of cloisters of people huddled around glass waiting for something to happen. The thing you're looking for to tie it all off. Get that proof of theory (at least a few times over),  get it "reviewed", publish, profit, repeat.

PENCIL made a lot of its money by ghost-writing research papers, bogus or otherwise, and selling them off, but that’s another story.

The work was only scientific because we deemed it so, because most of the results only appeared where the data could survive, when we cherrypicked and cut corners to fit the molds.

I’m guessing less than half of our findings were genuine. Can’t take back what you put out there though; just debunk, retract where you can, and move on.

The one thing we didn't skimp on was safety and security. Employees that didn't give the game of the facility away, and could stay alive, and wanted to come back and keep working (for the sake of the paycheck or not) were gold star scientists. Even better if they were LEAD ambassadors.

The content of the tests as is... well, I can't breach Tumblr’s TOS.

They were mechanical, verbal, psychological, logical; we just hurled all kinds of things at them (literally or not). The press just got wind of the more brutal ones. I shared one that was just that, with Jamie, because that's how you play the game with this. You play to the heart, you write to shock. Science was like a game that got boring to those people, so they changed the rules, spiced things up a little. They left the inductivists on the doorstep.

Unpredictability in the face of a science that should be consistent and certainty was the only certainty we had, from method to practice.

I liked (if I can call it a like anymore without sounding delusional) the psychological tests the most. Influencing the subjects with varying stimuli, giving them illogical, paradoxical tasks, observing reactions... that, to me (back then), was the essence of a toon: the reaction, like an inked pen to a page.

Like forcing magnets together.

“The blood and ink and organs are visual wonders to the human mind, yes, but gazing deep into the inner workings of minds we understand even less than our own, perhaps even seeing decades of influence from the world and the animator they came from, feels crucial to the inherent power that toons hold as a foundation for our understanding of them.”

That sentence(!) was left in a chat log from an old colleague; some draft of their research paper that they never finished.

Academics write prose like that all the time, sure, but the test records always looked more performance review than a findings write-up.

Like I said: a game with different rules.

I have a lot of test records lying around- I’ll show you what I mean.

— R

[grison-in-space]

I'm honestly curious how you square the criticism of paternalism with the apparent conviction that people (or at least some people) are better off with some kind of minder, or in some way unfree. These read as basically the same things to me, so what qualifications need to apply to the latter to make it acceptable?

You know what, that is a fair question. I think what I was trying to articulate last night is actually a little more complicated than that, but I definitely did not lay out the connective tissue to get there, and I see how you got that reading. (I am very much one of those people who thinks by speaking, sometimes, and I am absolutely doing some of that by this point.)

First: I don't think that some people are better off unfree, full stop. I really want to emphasize that very strongly here.

Second: I was trying to articulate some of my tension with the notion that 100% unbounded freedom of choice is inherently the ideal to which all individuals (do? should?) aspire. ARA philosophy focuses really heavily on the idea that any curtailment of choice or influence from humans to animals is inherently coercion and therefore immoral. It focuses very strongly on the idea that freedom to choose is the highest possible value to strive for.

And I think that partaking in society is inherently to accept curtailments on at least some freedoms, in exchange for receiving the support and resources of the greater social whole. (If nothing else, sometimes things I would like to do are also things that will upset someone else in my shared social world, who will then impose consequences on me about it.) What I was trying to do is articulate that trading some of those freedoms in exchange for the benefits of a society can be, and often is, a pretty good trade. That's why sociality exists in the first place, even in the existence of some pretty harsh hierarchies within some species.

I was not very clear about this, I freely admit.

The thing you gotta understand about me is that I think in terms of trade offs. Life is a series of imperfect decisions made to allocate finite resources (if nothing else, time) between series of conflicting demands and desires. Understanding those decisions is essentially my bread and butter. And everything has a cost—even preference itself.

Now, in terms of humans, one of the things that humans are genuinely rather unusual about is our collective capacity for delayed gratification, impulse control, and abstract reasoning. When we talk about animals, we have to recall that informed consent in this sense is essentially impossible to acquire: without language to convey abstract options and with much less capacity to consider future outcomes, it's harder to present these ideas to animals the way you can with humans.

And... for all that humans are unusually good at those things, we're not always that good at them! I was trying to reach for and articulate that my own experiences with decision-making in the present instant don't always square with my longer term goals and values, and that reasoning through the long term consequences of my actions like a perfectly logical actor isn't always something I am capable of doing in all moments of all time. Which is why I build in structures to outsource some of that cognitive load. I think there's a considerable cognitive load that comes with decision-making in an infinitely complex world, and I think that part of the utility of society is to help structure choices so that you don't have to engage in the cognitive effort of gathering information for every potential choice you could make and then making it. The structure lets us conserve effort and reserve energy for other goals and decisions.

I don't have to know why the fire code says there needs to be an egress window in my basement bedroom and think about whether the future risk of fire justifies the definite immediate cost of paying for the window and accurately assess the risk of burning alive; I just need to know that my city fire code says my choice is to have a bedroom with an egress window or not have a bedroom there. Risk assessment is really hard and it carries a lot of uncertainty; yielding my judgement to a trustworthy authority is a way to conserve effort.

Of course, how do we know an authority is trustworthy? That's the thing that is hard; the consequences of yielding choice to a structure that is not actually built to support you are stark. And authority isn't always trustworthy by default.

I view the ideal role of the state as a way to structure our society such that we leave maximal room for freedom while minimizing the amount of effort and discomfort it takes to attain longer term collective goals for safety and comfort. The inclusion of humans with all kinds of experiences in that power structure to the extent that we can do so, with expertise in various situations outsourced to people who have dedicated significant time to thinking deeply about those cases, helps us to minimize the risk of authority wielded to oppress rather than to guide. (And yes, circling back to disability and mad pride, the experience of people with cognitive, emotional, and perceptive disabilities absolutely needs to be a part of that structure.) We collectively build authoritative structures that shape our choice making environment such that we have relatively little room for harm and increased freedoms elsewhere.

That's humans. We can think far enough ahead and communicate well enough to make that work. Animals generally can't. So when we think about the ethics of human/animal interactions, it's likewise important to make sure that we are listening as carefully as we can in order to try to navigate that trade off as carefully as possible, with the caveat that it IS a trade off rather than an unalloyed good juxtaposed against a certain evil.

[talonabraxas]

Multidimensional Merkabah 💫 'Sirian' Light Body Talon Abraxas The Divinity Within

It is perhaps on this level, that we arrive at the very crux of defining what Merkabah is, and what it means. It quite literally is the chariot of God. It is a light vehicle that has allowed sages, prophets, ascended masters, enlightened beings, to reach out into higher levels and realms of consciousness and existence; to sort of access the Akashic records if you will; remember all of this is associated with Archangel Metatron, who is the chief, or better yet, chief angel, responsible for them, and documenting everything that is and ever was in existence. This is extremely pertinent in the context of what is being referred to as the great awakening, both on the spiritual and conscious level, seeing as to how one cannot ascend without activation of their Merkabah. The ascension is a rise into these higher realms of existence, a rise into the astral, spiritual planes, and those above them, so it would only make logical sense that the individual would need this new spirit and heart that was given to Ezekiel that allowed him to do so, more specifically that of activating the individual’s light codes and body, as well as that of the Merkabah in order that they too may ride the chariot of God, and connect or return to the source. That after all should be viewed as the ultimate goal of the spirit or the soul. To return to the source in response to all that God and Christ Consciousness can become.

And here we find the very quintessence of Merkabah Mysticism. It was a movement founded on the teachings of Ezekiel, which were revered by many as the most mystical part of the entire bible. Building off of what is taught, it set out for individuals to endeavor to receive their new spirit and their new heart, to activate their light bodies, and with it their Merkabah, and to ride the chariot of God, as the Prophet Ezekiel did. And here it should be noted that both the light body and the Merkabah with it, are both divine forces that are accessible everywhere. We make common misinterpretations that these things are only reserved for the very righteous, or the divine, the enlightened, or to a very select few, and that it is as if they were sort of hand-selected or preordained to on some holy level to do so. Here we see, that we have completely missed the message of these divine and enlightened individuals. Most if not all of them came in the form of simple ordinary men. Ezekiel manifested these divine things in shackles of exile. Buddha who was next in line to inherit the throne consciously chose to rather seek a life of spirituality, of suffering, and of martyrdom, if it meant enlightenment and finding a cure to the maladies and suffering of humankind. Even God’s very own son, to whom we think we cannot compare ourselves to, even though he stated that if you believe, you can perform miracles greater than my own, was presented to us in the form of a lowly carpenter who had nothing, and that was born in a manger alongside sheep and other animals. God does this for a reason, and it is to show us that the average person, the commoner, the prisoner, the meek, humble, and the lowly, all have and can be divine, and to seek that divinity within. It’s no wonder that the meek will inherit the earth. We don’t ever find God looking out at the heavens, or looking in the church, or anything else that is provided in the external or material world. No, what we find is that when we turn inward, into ourselves, and look for how to find peace, love, and happiness within, so that we have it no matter what life has to offer us, it is there that we find God is within all of us, within our hearts.

[madrone33]

Ok, so heavy SPOILER WARNING for Pjo episode 6! And the rest of the show since I have read the book! Just, y’know, there’s your warning.

I’d also like to preface this by saying this post will be a rambling, not at all ordered, completely unscripted, kinda-rant kinda-essay of my thoughts on the episode, which means it is inherently biassed and completely composed of my thoughts, feelings, and opinions! None of this is fact, and I’m not trying to force my opinion on you. If you think differently or disagree, that’s completely fine! I would hate to live in a world full of clones of myself lol

With that out of the way, onto whatever this will turn out to be!

Ok, so I really liked the Hermes scene. That part was well written and acted. The family drama and guilt and blame is this show is really complex and everyone just needs multiple hugs tbh. Also, seeing a bit of Hermes’ powers was interesting.

I’m intrigued to know more about Percy’s flashback, while at the same time dreading it because I know it’ll be something heart wrenching and traumatic for poor Percy.

Hermes not agreeing to help them was a kinda foregone conclusion; it would be way too easy for them if he just let them into the Underworld, and we can’t make things easy for them now, can we :D

The Kronos stuff was cool to see, with Luke desperately covering his ass lmao, and Percy confiding in Annabeth. The slight change in Iris Messaging, with them not needing water and using a crystal instead was good. Both that it saved time and that it’s more believable. If your one communication tool is rainbows, of course you’d carry around a portable crystal to make ‘em.

It does make me wonder if they’re ever going to explain that technology - as in phones - makes it easier for monsters to find you. ‘Cause currently I… don’t think that’s been made clear to non-book audiences? Maybe I missed it in an earlier episode? Idk.

The scene where they released the trafficked animals was funny, and Grover completely overlooking if humans would get hurt and only thinking of the animals was a nice touch. I get why they didn’t show the animal abuse explicitly, even if I liked how in the books it was shown more clearly.

Them actually realising that the Lotus Hotel is connected to the Lotus Eaters from the Odyssey was good. I like how they’re identifying the threats faster in the show, whereas in the book they really fell for the monsters’ traps a lot. And the fact that they were on guard and were thinking that it was the food to watch out for added a different kind of danger than the books, where it was more just the readers sensing something wrong and hoping they’d not get trapped.

I like that the Lotus was actually being pumped into the air the whole time. And the fact that Percy and Annabeth being together helped them remember what they were actually there for vs Grover being alone and succumbing quicker was logical.

I didn’t like what they did with Grover so much. Him finding a fellow Satyr and trying to talk to him the way that he can’t to Percy and Annabeth was sad, but then, uh, idk he kinda just felt a bit useless? And the Satyr (who’s name I’ve completely forgotten oops) I think was supposed to be seen as funny? But he was… not. He wasn’t funny. And Grover was just very meh.

Like, this is one of those instances where I would’ve liked for them to change it from the books. In the books they all get split up become slowly addicted to the games in the Lotus Hotel and all that, and then Percy snaps out of it and he goes to wake up Annabeth and Grover, and they find Grover playing something like ‘Destroying Humanity’ and then drag him out of there. Which is basically what happens here, but it’s just-

They’ve changed so many other things for the better, turning moments from a randomness scene to a character beat. And I think they tried to do that by adding the Satyr and the ‘Finding Pan’ game, but it just. Didn’t work for me. He was just kinda there and did basically nothing and, like.

Ok ok so my main problem with this episode is the lack of tension.

First off, they were more meandering around looking for Hermes, it didn’t seem like they were that worried they might not find him. Like, they literally just wandered around and found him, without asking for any directions from strange people that might’ve given some insight into how sus this place is, or even having a quick montage cut of them jogging around peering into shady places. They just- walk around slowly and then there he is. Incredible.

Second, I know the Lotus is supposed to be like a drug, where you forget things and just focus on feeling good all the time, but I would’ve liked if Grover figured out that it was in the air, or that too much time has passed, and tries to fight it or smth?

Like, he starts to forget, and knows he’s forgetting something important, and tries to find- someone- the people he knows he came here with- not just so they can help him remember but to warn them that they were wrong, and it’s not just if you eat the food it’s everywhere and they need to go because the time- it’s all slipping away and he can’t let them be trapped here-

But something or someone stops him, hold him back, makes it so he can’t, and slowly he starts to forget why he’s fighting or what he’s fighting for and then he succumbs, and the switch you can see in him from scared-determined-panicked to dazed-confused-happy is terrifying.

And now we viewers are on the edges of our seats, because now we know that Percy and Annabeth are in so much more danger than we thought, and now there’s a time limit, and now Grover is trapped in his own mind slowly losing himself, and now we’re wondering when it’s going to start happening to Percy and Annabeth too, and now we really need them to realise and save Grover and get the fuck out of there before it’s too late-

But uh, yeah, we… didn’t get that. Instead it was almost- portrayed as comical? Like, there wasn’t a lot of weight put on it.

Old man Satyr keeps forgetting ha ha ha. Oh Grover’s forgetting too? Wow it’s gonna be super hard to get out of that one! Oh, no it’s super easy. Barely an inconvenience! Oh really? Yeah, Percy and Annabeth have barely started to forget anything important, and then they happen to look up and see the Satyr and get reminded of Grover. And then there’s a super short chase scene and then jump cut to them finding Grover playing video games and oh funny, he doesn’t remember them! But it’s fine, it actually doesn’t matter, they get him and go and he remembers on his own a few minutes later! 😀

Speaking of; I might have missed something but did Annabeth do anything at all during that chase scene? Like, I think she went another route to try and cut him off, but then she just kinda disappears, Percy tackles him, and she never shows up…? Idk, I’ll rewatch it sometime, but as of now it’s very strange in my mind.

The car scene was kinda funny, but again, not a lot of tension at all.

(Though as someone learning how to drive that scene made me cringe because of how relatable it was lmao. Honestly, Percy drove way too well for a first timer in a crowded parking lot, and the fact that he actually made that turn decently well? Yeah, someone give him a pat on the back lol.)

… Okay so I just thought of something that is unrealistic and wildly deviating from the books to the point that it’s basically just fanfic, but hey, they deviated anyway when they introduced Hermes this early and it’s my shitty tumblr post so - imagine if there was a car chase. There. I said it. If you’re going to make Percy drive a basically stolen taxi through Los Angeles, fucking commit and make him have to outrun the cops/some monster until they manage to activate whatever makes the car teleport!

Like, do an ‘IKEA after dark’ situation where things are all happy go lucky in the club at first, and then after they talk to Hermes and the Lotus starts effecting them, shit starts to get weird, and the patrons around them start becoming strange, and there’s a creeping sense of wrong wrong wrong as they rush to find Grover and then they find him but he’s wrong, and he looks at them like they’re strangers and they don’t know how to fix it, so all they can do is grab him and run, barely remembering where they’re going or why, but they’re holding themselves together, and when one starts to slip the others are there to haul them forward and remind them what they’re doing.

They have car keys in hand, and they might not know how to drive but fuck it they need to go, so bring on the dramatic dark lighting and wild driving and many bumpy, jerky, shit-we-almost-ran-over-something-important escapades, sirens closing in behind them and then he takes a wrong turn and stares wide eyed into the headlights of an incoming truck, flinches back, eyes slaming shut and-

Silence broken only by crashing waves. Insert Santa Monica scene after slightly hysterical laughter because holy fuck they survived.

… Um, yeah soz, idk where that came from lmao.

Moving on! So, I didn’t mind them getting Hermes’ car too much. Like, hell yes she pickpockets a god. But I didn’t like the way that Annabeth got the keys. Like, he’s the God of Thieves and she’s pretty smart. No way she wouldn’t realise that he let her take them.

A way to make it better would’ve been if he’d done some subtle shit, and she’d done some subtle shit, and then it was shown with some shots that here he puts his keys in this pocket, and then a few shots later maybe she brushes past him, or she “leaves” the room but you can fuzzily see pot plant leaves moving in the background if you know to look for it, and then boom, no more keys in his pocket, and when Percy catches up with her she reveals that Hermes let her take them, and we’re like “ahh, of course, can’t help directly but isn’t stopping them if they take initiative, cool cool.”

But nope. She got they keys, thinks she somehow stole them without his knowledge, and then it’s revealed that, duh, he knew, and they’re just like, welp, guess we should’ve known! Yeah. You should’ve. Annabeth is just- not? She’s just not? Like this? This isn’t how she would- do stuff. She’s smarter than that.

But see what I mean? No tension. Need to find Hermes, oh there he is. He won’t help them, but they got his keys. Lost Grover, but found him almost right away. Don’t know how to drive, but whatever lets go. Grover lost his memory, but nah he’s got it back just fine.

Yeahhh. Idk it just felt weirdly lacking.

What also felt weirdly lacking was the reveal that the Solstice has passed and the gods are going to war.

So, most of that underwater bit wasn’t how the books went, but I’m kinda withholding judgement on how I feel depending on how the next two episodes handle it.

The deadline being up and the gods already going to war? I don’t like it, but yeah, I can see how it might work with the themes laid out.

This isn’t just a war, it’s a family fighting, and instead of Percy just doing it because it’s The Quest, this - his father releasing him from the quest, and Ares telling him it doesn’t matter and they’d go to war regardless of it the Bolt is found, and everyone saying it’s not his place - it gives Percy agency because he’s choosing to forge ahead and save his mother, and find the bolt, and save this family he’s become a part of from itself. It’s his choice now. I can see why they made that change.

Though for some reason the pacing was weird, and the reveal that war was literally upon them was… eh? Like, “oh btw you’re too late and now we’re going to war.” “Huh, interesting, but I’m still going.” Like I said; lack of tension. There’s just no real urgency. It went really fast, or maybe too slow? Idk, there was just something missing.

The four pearls thing? I was very thrown by that, and I’m still pretty uncertain on if that’ll remove all the tension in the Underworld part. Because the whole conflict is if he’ll choose going after the Bolt and saving the Olympians? Or will he choose his mother and doom them to war?

If he has four pearls, then he can do both, which means zero stakes. But I’ve read some other people’s opinions, and I agree that one of those pearls is definitely getting lost/broken/used up before he can give it to her, which means this was done to raise hopes and then bring them crashing down, so I’m withholding judgement and hoping that it won’t be too contrived.

And I don’t like that Poseidon basically says he wants Percy to save Sally too, because a huge part of Percy’s dilemma was that the gods didn’t understand or agree with Percy wanting to save his mum.

Poseidon being on Percy’s side certainly serves the themes the episode set up, with Hermes wanting to be there for his family and failing, this time with Poseidon trying to be there for Percy and Sally, and hopefully succeeding. But it just feels like Percy isn’t as alone as he should be, which is good for him as a person, but bad from a writing standpoint because it makes it feel too easy.

In the books, it’s kinda an act of rebellion, that he would even think of choosing a mortal over the gods, but here he’s… not? Because the gods - or at least Hephestus, Hermes and Poseidon - are on his side. So he’s not choosing a mortal over the gods, he’s just saving his mum, and half the gods have given him the thumbs up to do it.

Not saying they weren’t secretly supporting him in the books too, but Percy didn’t think they were. He felt alone. He felt the pressure of the consequences that would come with whatever descision he made. In the show he’s not really going against the gods, because the gods are actively endorsing him. Which means, say it with me, no tension.

Anyway, like I said: withholding judgment. I'll see how the next ones go, and then come to a proper conclusion based on a complete picture.

Also, side note: When the nereid said, “What belongs to the sea can always return” all I was thinking was the musical and Poseidon’s goofy ass voice saying “It’s a SeAShElL” 😂

Oh and btw, the graphics/makeup/cgi of the nereid was well done to my untrained eye. I have no idea about how it’s done, or if it’s actually shitty in the professional sphere, but I thought it was pretty, so- thumbs up from me.

Though the whole scene at the beach and swimming to her was so dark I literally had to turn my tv’s brightness up to see what was happening, which I also had to do with the Theme Park last episode, and I almost did with the Minatour. Man, they really have a problem with lighting during the night scenes.

But just throughout the whole episode, there's just this feeling of non-urgency. Like, in the episode where time is the most important thing, it... doesn't really feel like it matters all that much.

Um, yeah. I think that was all I wanted to say…

In conclusion, I liked Hermes, aaand not much else. It was still a fun episode, but just all round pretty iffy plot wise. Rip.

I shall leave this with saying WE FINALLY GOT WISE GIRL!! 🥳

[iniziare]

Verse: Absolution (Present Timeline)

"And so I wield my blade to the very end, until the stars have been cut down from the sky. This oath I will never forsake."

With the long elaboration of what (or rather 'who') I think Jingliu's deal is with (that you can find written up in this post), I think that it's a logical progression to talk about what I want to do with it. Simply because something like potentially being given a blessing that is able to restrain the mara... wouldn't be done without reason. I don't see the Aeons as 'kind' and 'benevolent', because canon has given me no reason to think that they are.

"... but whether it be you, me, the Cloud Knights, or the generals of the Reignbow Arbiter, we are all just pawns in a game of the gods. I am sick and tired of threading on a predetermined path."

Jingliu's case was as simple as it was serious, she eventually entirely succumbed to mara due to the sheer amount of trauma tied to her history (and at the time, her 'present'), and there was no return for her. So the fact that she did come back from it, and refers to it as a ‘deal’ is immense, as she wouldn’t have been lucid enough to seek it of her own accord as she was akin to a rabid animal— it had to have been offered to her. This is why I believe it’s ‘divine intervention’. On top of that, why restrain her from the mara as best as possible, if not done for a specific purpose? No one could stand toe to toe with Jingliu in combat, not a single enemy could ever best her— so is she then not the best adversary against Yaoshi, and all denizens of the Abundance? That’s the direction that I believe they are going. As she herself states to Jing Yuan: Jingliu is a pawn, along like many others, in a game of the gods. What encapsulates this better, than to have her be lucid because of one of these gods, to fight another? But it’s not even forced on her, for I fully believe that her hatred of the Plagues Author surpasses that of anyone else’s, except Lan's themselves. And with the 2.5 trailer, I feel even more strongly that this is the case. So let me note down the details of a present-day verse. This will get edited accordingly if canon itself plays into this more firmly

One final time, as stated above: Jingliu is kept lucid not by the Ten Lords Commission's 'wine' as is shown to have been the case with Hanya (and Xueyi), there is no tie as she fled the Xianzhou while succumbed, and fell to mara even further afterwards, when she ultimately fought Jing Yuan. The reason instead, is because of Lan, who is keeping her lucid as to serve as a soldier/pawn in the battle with the Abundance. The strongest soldier that the Luofu had in its ranks.

With the 2.5 trailer out, and the seeming further confirmation that Feixiao is inherently tied to Hoolay and the Borisin (and the direct note of the Moon Rage affliction, which is an innate Borison curse), and the continuous name-dropping of Jingliu, which was now followed up with a glimpse of her— I'm relatively certain in my assumption that this is a perfect example of what Jingliu would have been kept lucid for: the protection of the Xianzhou Luofu (and the Xianzhou Alliance as a whole).

There are multiple direct ways for Jingliu to either be kept out of jail, or have her sentence altered. One is given to me by the very heavy insinuation within the 2.5 trailer, which is Feixiao's apparent betrayal of the Alliance. This is one of the Arbiter Generals, whom were all bestowed with spirits by Lan, making them formidable enemies. Once observing Jingliu's lucidity for themselves (Hua, the Marshal, and Yaoguang, the Arbiter General presiding over the Yuque), Jingliu could be designated as the person to hunt down both Hoolay (who she was responsible for defeating the first time) and Feixiao, in exchange for a lesser sentence.

But the mara? It never goes away, it never leaves her. She is pulled back to lucidity, but that is seemingly (from what I can tell), the only 'reprieve' that she gets. For example, Jingliu is still plagued by an incredibly unreliable mind that still holds memories but the details slip through her fingers like sand. When she is caught within moments of participation in intense turbulence, there is something akin to a faint blood-lust that aches under the surface— but due to the deal's restraint, she's able to step away from it, though there will be physical evidence of the difficulty that I imagine could manifest similarly to incredibly intense withdrawal symptoms. There is a reduced appetite and thirst, and there is an intense cold to her touch when the mara grows a little in intensity.

Would she be able of reclaiming the title of Sword Champion? Unlikely, as Jingliu did commit one of the Xianzhou's sins, and was erased from its living records for having done so. And though this was committed outside of her own conscious mind, she is incredibly aware and intent on accepting and facing the consequences of said sin (one could see her having to live with the mara's symptoms as an eternal suffering). Besides, there is another who might one day claim it. But to her, what it represents for her (and not in general), is... merely a title, a position, something that she once was through and through— but is no longer. It is a tragedy, but it is is also life.

[nerves-nebula]

hi there, i want to ask about your usage of it/its pronouns, sorry if this might make you uncomfortable or if its weird or confusing

are your it/its pronouns any different from it/its pronouns for an object? I don't know how to word it sorry, I'm just trying to understand more about other types of pronouns

It’s fine. They aren’t different from an objects it/its to me, because objects & animals & concepts aren’t inherently inferior to humans, so I wouldn’t really mind being in the same group as them conceptually.

It’s a mindset I haven’t fully gotten into but I’m trying to rework the way I see the world, inspired partially by the things I’ve heard native Americans say. Like, I am not better than the food I eat because I’m human. A bear isn’t better than me because they can eat me & kill me. Humans are a part of the earth and would do best to work inside of it and with it than to try to control it or put ourselves on a higher level than it’s other creatures.

I mean clearly we can’t be all that much smarter & more important, what with what we’ve got going on.

But anyway, my pronoun change was at first honestly just the most logical conclusion.

Here’s my train of thought: I didn’t like he or she, Im not a man or a woman. and they/them don’t tell you anything about my gender. If you hear someone call me they/them you aren’t even gonna know I have a weird gender!

Similar to how man and woman are genders, but Non-binary isn’t. Non-binary just describes what you aren’t, its an umbrella term not (inherently) a specific gender. it’s very broad and most nonbinary people I’ve seen & met still identify in parts with man and woman. They/them is so vague that no one would bat an eye if you slipped in a they while describing a cis person who clearly reads as their assigned gender.

And I’m too forgetful & lazy to use neopronouns so, it/it’s was the natural choice. It’s easier to integrate because people already use it/it’s for stuff all the time.

And see, here’s the thing: I have a gender, I’m not vague or in between or a mix. And it’s much closer to like, the idea of a Third Gender. This was something that frustrated me a lot in high school because I would go looking for labels and most of them were about proximity to manhood & womanhood. Or about being agender or neutral. Or about concepts I fully did not relate to. I am not one of those things.

Another issue I had was that a lot of these gender labels had “-gender” at the end which doesn’t make sense to me at all. It’s not mangender and womangender so I didn’t vibe with this naming scheme.

I was also hesitant to use a label a white person made because I’d noticed that white people kind of have a different experience with nonbinary gender than people like me.

Luckily I found the perfect label! Maverique! It had no weird -gender suffix and it was made by a black person who created it online after realizing neutral/agender didn’t fit right.

And yea so it/its is a signifier of me as a third thing. not male, not female, not neutral or in between or lacking gender- just a different kind of person.

And this isn’t even getting into all the ways that I related to monsters in media, which were frequently called by it/it’s pronouns. Or how being abused factors into seeing myself as a non human THING and how embracing that makes me feel much more alive & like a person.

So yea, that’s the run down :)

[secretoreimo]

Hello I can't resist the obnoxious urge to blabber about my feelings so long analysis under the cut!? JHSDHJKJS

Okay, so. Indeed, while I understand that the game couldn't keep them blood-related for censorship reasons and such, I do think it killed the impact of them getting together a good bit.

My suspension of disbelief kind of tanked when Kirino asked Kyousuke to be her boyfriend right after he poured his heart out, expressing his insecurities that something might change between them. The game really does treat it like it's not only a non-issue but also a logical step to take, now, and I honestly have the capacity to ignore that for what I'm here for (them interacting, period), but it was definitely jarring.

I will say though, I did like that this began because they sat down to have a genuine talk about it. That felt much more organic and in-character than the nonsense we got in season 2, with the screaming in public and whatnot. And it did a lot more to stress the lengths they've changed since the beginning of the series, letting them sit down and confess to each other nervously. Well, I'd have liked if it were significantly more nervous, personally.

The thing about their relationship is it is inherently fucked up, like. It is at the center of all of their problems. Kirino has a crippling obsession with "imouto eroge" and this stemmed from the fact that, from a VERY young age, she believed herself to be a freak who had improper and disgusting feelings for her older brother, and eroge was something she latched onto as an escape from that reality. Sure, it did end up just being plain her favorite thing, but it came from that place.

I think if there's one thing I'd credit the anime for, it's that she didn't admit to her feelings ever, not until the very end when it was absolutely undeniable that they were reciprocated. She was repressed for so long I truly don't believe there'd be a reality where she'd say it first. Kyousuke has his own daddy issues, but there's something to be said regardless of a guy who is otherwise pretty normal, but finds himself falling in love with his little sister, however estranged. He's pretty fucked up, himself. Although I wish he hadn't screamed it in the center of the street at the top of his lungs in the most soulless loss for his character ever, I think the only way for them to actually move forward in a relationship would be for him to come to terms with it and say something first, however long a process that may or may not be.

I love the scenario the game poses where their relationship starts to take a "maybe I'll invite her out, just the two of us" turn, and she actually agrees instead of being flat out disgusted and disparaging. Sure, the beach was a little random and the game could have picked a better excuse than "idk why im inviting her to the beach it's almost like i got her route in a video game", but like. Idk, I like it when they interact, it feels natural for the most part. The game feels really good when you scoop out those little moments of "we're not siblings actually we're just a boy and a girl and it's natural".

Even just this scene post-confession, if I were to pretend that part had happened a different way, the banter over how they're gonna continue as a couple is pretty cute and in character.

I'm rambling about all of this not like to bitch I just have so many feelings and things I like and don't like and there are parts that I'd mix and match between anime canon and game canon and things... it's kind of fun. All in all I'd say this feels like an extremely well-written (and well-voiced) fanfiction. I'd accept these things in a fanfiction and move on, just as I'm gonna do for the game, but since it's official I get to be a freak on the internet and write paragraphs about it jhfhjsg

I am ultimately of the opinion that them being blood-related is the better story, it says more about their flaws and their personalities, and tbh I'm a sucker for characters who shouldn't be in love falling in love. Especially when they're as lovingly crafted as the characters in oreimo are. This series really is something special, I think, and it's kind of impossible to describe that to someone who hasn't seen it and just knows it for its reputation as "the anime where the brother and sister get married and kiss on the mouth at the end", which I guess is all anyone was gonna get from season 2

I rambled so long that I don't even have time to continue playing past their confession!! Now I have to go to sleep, but continue I shall soon, because... I love them...

[cynicalmusings]

as per somebody’s (@rainswept’s) request, here is a very emotionally charged, not particularly logically analysed xiao rant:

he deserves so, so much better in his life than he was given, and sometimes better treatment by the fandom, too: we all know the joke of xiao being ‘edgy’ and ‘emo’, but after seeing it so often, it’s… really lost any original humour it had in the first place for me, and even when it’s said as a joke, it really undermines his character depth—and there probably are some people who don’t look past his ‘edgy’, surface-level traits as well as those who just say it in jest. of course, it’s not a crime to make such a joke, but i’m personally tired of seeing his character reduced to an emo teenager. (some of this characterisation probably also comes from his english voice—which is by no means bad, but definitely sounds more ‘edgy’ than the other voiceovers in the game.)

xiao’s just… been through so much. he was enslaved by a cruel god and forced to commit atrocities and massacres and eat dreams and all that, he’s lost almost every person he ever cared about over the course of his life, he suffers constant karmic debt for his years of bloodshed and has to fight just to keep himself sane sometimes, and after all this, when he could have turned spiteful and bitter, he remains selfless and kind (as seen when he practically sacrificed himself in the chasm), distancing himself from other people because he doesn’t want to harm them. he never once asks for gratitude from liyue’s people, never once complains about the immense amount of suffering he’s undergone, when he has every right to. he sees himself as less than a person, even asking the traveller to view him as no more than a weapon, and doesn’t think himself worthy of love or peace or a normal life, which is heartbreaking, because he deserves all of those things so badly.

his idle animation with the little spirit light really encapsulates his character well, i think: he’s ultimately a gentle, curious soul who wants to reach out, but others are driven away from him by his karma, and instead of selfishly pursuing them anyway, he pulls himself away as not to risk hurting them. it speaks to his inherently gentle nature which has been forced into hiding because of all he’s been through, and writing him off as emo really doesn’t allow these aspects of him to show. he’s a complex, well-written character who has been to hell and back, and still remains a kind person despite it all. when you really think about it, it’s just… incredibly sad. i know i light-heartedly talk about him needing hugs, but he really does need some affection— even if it’s not physical, he deserves to know how much better he is than what he considers himself to be.

like, guys, he’s not emo. he’s traumatised.

[alexissara]

Why Hunt Monsters?

in TTRPGs the default standard mode of play is to fight monsters. In many ways this is thanks to D&D but this is replicated in many TTRPGs. I wanted to explore this common TTRPG, Video game and fictional trope of the "monster hunter" and really break down my thoughts on this topic.

The Reasons People Hunt Monsters

"Their Evil" is the most basic Lord Of The Rings ass reason for killing a monster. They are born evil, spawned of evil, they can never be anything but evil. These arguments count on you believing in the ability for something to be evil, to exist purely for malice. These both ask you to accept that an individual can be evil but also a whole race of people can be evil.

"Their Animals" is another approach taken for monster hunting media. A wild animal is dangerous so you are always justified with killing the animal just living it's life. Perhaps it's stricter and requires the use of it for food, cloths, etc in the way hunters might use an animal they have killed. This concept does require one to believe in killing animals and that animals are ultimately lesser life then the lives of your characters.

"Their Present Danger" Maybe these monsters evil or animal or neutral morally are simply a present danger to people. If they are people then they can't be reasoned with, there is no means of peace, you simply must enter a phase of violence against them even if you don't take issue with their wider existence. If they are animal then we must believe this land you are on did not belong to the animal, that it living it's natural life is unjustice and that protecting the lives of the people or yourself is more valuable then the life of the other living creature.

These three reasons take up the core logic behind monster hunters, monster slayers, adventuring parties, and more. I want to examine this and talk more in depth about the ways that these interactions with fictional life interact with the ways with think about real life.

The Dangers Of Minimizing Life

You may say that I am stretching when I say that to treat fictional monsters who have sentience as worthy of killing teaches us to feel the same way about humans, I don't think it is. We see this exactly mode of play replicated through many other TTRPGs. Games like Sentinels Of The Multiverse RPG and Mutants and Master Minds also work on treating people with lives and thoughts, families and friends as monsters. Their XP to be farmed, obstacles to be overcame. Maybe you don't kill the henchmen like you do a Goblin but mechanically you do functionally the same.

Sentinels Of The Multiverse RPG a fairly recent Super Hero TTRPG has fucking Rioters as a standard enemy they designed for you to kick the ass of. Any of the three core reasons people hunt monsters still lead to a mechanical similarity to this outlook. For instance it has been said by people smarter than me that the way we treat animals is the way we treat people we dehumanize. So it's easy for many to see a marginalized person lashing out at a world killing their people and see them as equal to a feral alligators let loose on the city. However, that person is justified at being angry and doing things to try and make the world better and the Alligator, it's just trying to live.

When We're Evil

If evil exists and it is in somethings nature, a simple core part of their function, unchangeable and unavoidable, their fate to be a piece of shit, can they really be blamed? Is a thing born of evil any different then any animal running on gut instinct? They can't help it right, it is who they are, who they will always be, then can they really be blamed for their sins? These questions basically move us back to "animal talk" and that's part of the point. Inherent evilness reduces people to animals, to beasts and those people have decided that being an animal is enough to justify your slaughter.

Inherit evilness is a tool of the racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist powers of be. From demonizing witches to Jewish people to trans people to queers even the word for what has been done to these communities implies it is making a monster out of them. In fact many monsters have their commonly coded traits from marginalized people's of their historical times. Those who were oppressed, they were turned into monsters, their stereotyped features enhanced into a fantasy version of the bigoted image of hate. So many of these things in fiction seen as inherently evil are also based on what the people through the years are based on these oppressed peoples.

Even the simple belief that a whole group of people connected only by birth could be evil is fuel in a fash fire. Even taking some "evil occupations" can be coding in these same stereotypes like many of witch stereotypes are taken from Black, Jewish, and Romani women. So in worlds where witches are always evil it is often taking religious and cultural practice's from these groups and declaring those to be the signifies of evil. Obviously there is real life jobs that are pretty evil but they actually require human suffering and they translate across cultures, sexualities, genders, etc as always being harmful to others.

That is to say that when we look at evil itself as a concept we need to challenge it. What is evil, who is evil, what about these people are evil, and is this so called evil based on stereotypes or bullying marginalized people?

We Can Change

We also have to ask what we are saying about the ability to change, about free will and our hearts. If someone is a danger, if someone is evil, if someone is an animal can we not find ways to work things out, to co-exist, to help them grow, to help them change? Their is obviously times where violence is needed, that is clear but when we are looking at monsters and what is "inherit" why are they not afforded the same consideration as those we consider to be "basically human".

I personally prefer to live in a world where people can change, where things can get better, where things aren't decided by the divine above us but instead we chose our own fates. An inherit dark nature, an inherent reason to end the life of something removes what makes life great, that free will. If you believe in change then why not believe in it when your blade is drawn at a monster?

Empathetic Models

This has all been to say that I believe we should be looking at ways to make more empathetic models and modes of play. Killing a hoard of Orcs isn't what an action game has to be let alone a game. We can look to all sorts of art to see these alternative structures. On one end we have something like Monster Hunter Stories 2 which takes a more indigenous approach to the monsters and the ways the characters relate to them. Then another we have a show like Steven Universe which believes in the kindness and ability to be redeemed in everything. We have plenty more examples of different approaches Pokemon, Digimon, Undertale, Deltarune, Thirsty Sword Lesbians, Monster Care Squad, Wanderhome, and more to build from.

I want to see empathy and more thoughtful violence built on in the same ways the thoughtless violence of Lord Of The Rings and D&D were for so many years. We could have so many cool and amazing things if we managed to focus in and build more and more models for what engaging with the world.

If you enjoyed my thoughts maybe consider throwing me some money over on Patreon or Ko-fi.

[female-malice]

How do you advocate for cities and claim to love the environment? The run off and toxins, the destruction of natural spaces, and the destruction of man's connection to nature? There is nothing more unnatural or embodies the false idols of capitalism and waste like a city. They're called concrete jungles for a reason, a foul mockery of the gifts of Gaia. Do you really think mankind is more harmonious with nature when living in a steel and glass cage where there is no shrubbery or foliage than they are in a 5 acre wooded property? Where no animal can escape the fate of ending up road kill? Where the infrastructure and lifestyle cannot compete with the fires which cleanse the forest or the blizzards which feed it?

Ah, yes, blizzards. Surely we can count on blizzards every year. Surely the drought crisis will just suddenly vanish one day, right? So that will just magically take care of itself. Okay.

Do these hypothetical rural Gaia-loving cabin dwellers have infrastructure? Or no? Are we doing rural infrastructure, too? Or are we talking about cryptic cottage witches with no contact to the outside world?

In reality, rural areas require infrastructure. Roads. Power lines. Power plants. Water. And the cost and energy use to build this infrastructure is astronomical. And for all that cost and energy invested, only a few people benefit.

Who do you think is actually using the highways? Who do you think is killing the most wildlife? Do you honestly think an urban cyclist is responsible for more roadkill than a rural driver?

Do you seriously think there's no industrial pollution in rural areas? Do you really think all that rural land is undisturbed? Have you ever seen an industrial map? Do you know who actually owns all the rural land in the US and what they're doing with it?

They're not living in harmony with Gaia. That's for sure.

You're arguing that pollution is inherent to urban development. So by your logic, I can say deforestation and ecocide are inherent to rural development.

There are ways to have better rural and urban policy. But policy change doesn't seem to exist in your logical framework. So I guess we won't discuss it. Should we just say what we see in front of our faces is the only way things can ever be?

[danglovely]

Regrading Taskmaster: S04E03 Hollowing out a baguette.

*Score changes noted in parenthesis.

Prize Task: Best Membership/Subscription

There is sort of an inherent goal in this brief (touched upon by Hugh) that the subscription has to be better than just going to the store and buying that thing. So let's start with Hugh . . .

The Cloud Appreciation Society is unequivocally the best prize task he does and I love knowing that it exists. That said, it's clearly a completely shit subscription for all the reasons mentioned in studio. Even then, I'd still rather be a member of the Cloud Appreciation Society than get quarterly updates on the Crossrail.

The remaining three are regular deliveries of cheese, bacon, and a grilled cheese meal box. I'm legitimately struggling with this because there's ups and downs to all three. There is not enough variety to bacon to merit getting a subscription (and you run into the problem of letting the box dictate how much bacon you eat). Cheese has a nice variety and it could be fun to broaden horizons . . . but also about half of all gourmet cheese just tastes like feet and it's not something I love to gamble with.

I have my grilled cheese recipe fairly well nailed down (and it's in part inspired by TMNZ Season One). I almost want this one out of curiosity to see if there's any variance to the recipe for each random combination of bread and cheese you get. I don't follow Greg's logic that he picked it because he's lazy (who do you think is cooking that toastie, Greg?), but I still think it takes the task for being more interesting than the others.

Hugh: 2 (+1) Joe: 3 (0) Lolly: 4 (0) Mel: 1 (-1) Noel: 5 (0)

VT 01: Camouflage yourself.

Camouflage. Camouflage. Camouflage.

Let's get it out of the way early: I'm disqualifying Noel. He got the five from surprise and audience reaction, but he did nothing to himself. Sometimes you just have to punt it for the laughs.

I'm really close to disqualifying Hugh as well for basically hiding, but I think he saves it by strapping the door to his back. Joe's effort strikes me more as a disguise, but if everyone in the area is dressed the same, then it starts to come back around to camouflage again.

Lolly and Mel are the only two that Greg guessed easily. Lolly's effort was admirable even if the outcome wasn't amazing. Mel again defeated by not realizing she could leave the room.

Hugh: 4 (0) Joe: 5 (+1) Lolly: 3 (+1) Mel: 2 (+1) Noel: DQ (-5)

Team Task: Make a trailer for Taskmaster: The Movie.

I don't particularly enjoy this task, but the team of three's voiceover and costume changes make me cringe in a way that Tugtemester didn't. This is one where I freely admit my taste could be absolute trash, but I'm the one doing the regrade.

Hugh and Mel: 4 (+1) Joe, Lolly, & Noel: 1 (-1)

VT 03: Persuade three dogs to stand on the red mat. Exactly twelve legs must be stood on the mat at the same time.

So Lolly got chickens and Greg arbitrarily decides they are 40% harder than dogs. I'm with Alex: Chickens and dogs are animal equivalents, so no bonus points. Taskmaster isn't really about being fair anyway.

The other issue I take with this task is Alex isn't blowing the whistle if more than twelve legs are on the mat. He also only counts human legs for Hugh. It is impossible that leg #12 and leg #13 came down at the same time and the task does not state you can't have more than three dogs on the mat, so it should be over the moment any number over twelve is counted.

That said, there's no way for me to retime it based on this criteria (I suspect Mel would have done much better), so we defer to the times Alex recorded.

Hugh: 3 (0) Joe: 5 (0) Lolly: 2 (-2) Mel: 1 (0) Noel: 4 (0)

VT 04: Without moving the fishbowls, transfer the water from fishbowl A to fishbowl B. You may only use the items on this table. Also, you must commentate on your attempt throughout the task, always referring to yourself in the third person.

Hugh takes issue with Joe not commentating on his attempt in the third-person. Joe does commentate once, when his mouth isn't filled with water. It just so happens that his mouth was filled with water for most of the task. He could reasonably take a DQ here, but I don't really know what qualifies as insufficient commentary worthy of a DQ. It would also raise the question as to whether the chocolate penalty still applies in cases of disqualification. So, we'll leave it.

Lolly repeatedly reminds us why she gets disqualified. Joe and Mel fall victim to the minus five chocolate.

Hugh: 4 Joe: 0 Lolly: DQ Mel: -4 Noel: 3

Live Task: Take it in turns to say a 5-letter word whenever the music stops. You may not say a word that has been previously said. If you fail to say a word before the music starts again, you're eliminated and the game continues with different length words.

All-or-nothing task for five points. Joe cruises.

Hugh: 0 Joe: 5 Lolly: 0 Mel: 0 Noel: 0

Final:

Really only one big change here based on the camouflage task. Joe won the first time and he wins again (sans tiebreaker this time).

Hugh: 17 (+2) Joe: 19 (0) Lolly: 10 (-2) Mel: 4 (+1) Noel: 13 (-6)