#which... helps my point but its also VERY counter productive

[agentnoun]

Expedition 33: On Painting, Fiction, and the Reality of Art

This one's going to be less concrete than my last big post, so I might as well say that upfront. This is less an "argument" about one of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33's themes or story choices and more an exploration of how our minds interact with art and what that might mean in the context of a story like this.

I tagged this with spoilers so hopefully you're not seeing it at all if you're filtering those tags, but just in case, the full spoilers are under the cut.

Act I: The Part That's Textual

Throughout the story of Expedition 33, even before we know the truth about the world, there's a running theme about who is "real." If we really stretch we can even extend this all the way back to the prologue in Lumière, where people debate whether the Gestrals or "the Esquie" are real, though that just seems like a natural conversation to have in a fantasy world where you know little beyond the borders of your city (by the way, love giving Esquie a definite article--he truly is the Esquie).

(A side note: I don't really think reducing the debate to the idea that the Canvas world is "VR" and its people are "AI" is particularly productive, not because I necessarily think it's inaccurate, but because this is speculative fiction. While AI in real life is nowhere near "intelligent," AI in speculative fiction frequently is, and the question of whether AI is "alive" or "sentient" or not is a common one in science fiction especially. Even if you think of Canvas beings as functionally "AI," this remains a fantasy story--in fiction, AI can be alive, too.)

One of the earliest seeds of this question, though, is Painted Alicia's monologue when she visits Maelle at camp--the "those who know not that they are not" monologue. But it also comes up through the white Nevrons, as our characters come to wonder to what degree Nevrons are "alive" the same way that they are.

Though, of course, the question of reality becomes significantly more prominent in Act III, after we know that we've been in a Painted world, one of hundreds or even thousands of Painted worlds. And at this point, we learn that even Painters themselves don't seem to agree on how "real" beings within a Canvas are. Clea, notably, doesn't think of them as alive whatsoever, which is why she thinks nothing of Painting over her Painted counterpart (and her counterpart's lover, Simon). Alicia doesn't seem to have any issue with helping Renoir erase the Canvas, either, until she ends up living a whole second lifetime within it.

Even our player character, Painted Verso, doesn't seem so sure one way or the other. While he once strongly believed that painted beings had just as much right to live as their Painters (the "Verso" expedition journal), he either no longer believes this or has had enough cracks form in the belief that he's acting to the contrary. He refers to the world and its people as "made up" in his conversation with Maelle in the empty Lumière early in Act III and can optionally tell Monoco that neither he nor Monoco are "real" in a relationship conversation.

But he sure acts real, doesn't he? He has his own ideas and beliefs that have both changed over time. He even has his own will and acts counter to what the one who Painted him into existence wants. Surely that means he's "real," right? He not only displays sentience, but sapience as well, right?

And then there's the element that I consider the ultimate proof of, at the very least, sentience for Canvas beings: the white Nevrons. These are entities that Clea created specifically to be mindless killers, to kill Expeditioners so that their chroma can't return to Aline when they die. For the vast majority of them, that's exactly what they are. But some of them "woke up." Talking to them reveals emotions--it reveals they have desires, fears, worries, and hopes. They feel gratitude and betrayal. They're alive.

So what's going on here? Why are some Painters so certain that Painted beings aren't "alive," even though we can see clearly that they are?

Act II: Other Explanations

A brief section to mention some speculative explanations that I've seen other people post.

The Painters who think Canvas beings are real are simply wrong, possibly blinded by their own sentiment/grief/etc.

The Painters who think Canvas beings aren't real are simply wrong, perhaps rationalizing their godlike powers over them.

Canvas beings have a "soul" because of the fragment of the Painter's soul in the Canvas. In other words, characters like Lune and Sciel are "alive" because they're powered by Verso's soul.

Canvas beings are created to different degrees of "reality" and Clea possibly messed up on specific Nevrons, or those Nevrons inherited some of Painted Clea's desire for independence. This may also be supported by Painted Verso's ability to exist, at least temporarily, in that sort of limbo area outside the Canvas at the end, something he describes as "Maman's gift." Painters do seem able to imbue Painted creatures with some portion of their power--we see this with Painted Clea being able to make Nevrons, too, or Painted Renoir's limited ability to "erase" people, or even how Maelle can share her "Painted Power" with the rest of the team.

I think there are merits to, and arguments against, all of the above, but I'm not really writing this post to discuss those. I have a weirder idea.

Act III: The Part Where I Spin Wildly Off Into Speculation

There's this idea I really like about fiction and what a written story actually is. When I write a story, I often bear in mind the idea that the story isn't really the words on the page, nor is it the images I have in my head. The story is instead what happens when someone reads those words--it exists in the interaction between the words and the reader's mind. This is part of why I enjoy literary analysis so much, as it's possible to read a text through many different lenses. Those lenses can be personal, cultural, historical, academic, or any combination of those. And each lens shows you a different story. Each person's lens shows them a slightly different story from each other person. It's part of the beauty of storytelling.

Really, I feel that way about art in general. While an artistic experience is centered around the work in question--for example, you can't exactly view a painting without there being paint on a medium for you to view, right?--the experience of it is something that happens in some hypothetical space between the viewer and the work.

When you look at a painting, what you see is never exactly what the painter saw, or what someone viewing that painting a hundred years ago saw, or even what a person standing right next to you sees. Your experience of that painting is something between you and the painting, a construct of your mind and the artist's, meeting across time through the medium of art to create something unique, personal, and living.

(To be clear, this idea is not an original one of mine, but a philosophical conception of art and subjective experience that a lot of people have written about. I just really like it!)

What if we apply that to capital-P Painting as well? What if that's true of Canvas worlds?

The people in a Canvas are real, are alive, the same way that characters in a story are. They are real because we see them as real, because we understand them as real. Their emotions are our emotions, but also their Painter's emotions--a conversation between the two, manifested as people.

As others have noted, maybe the Painted people are an extension of Verso's soul, but I think it goes further than that. They are part of Verso, yes, but also part of Aline, and Renoir, and Clea, and Alicia. And they're part of us, as well.

Maybe that's part of why the Verso ending, "A Life to Love," strikes such a hopeful note. While Verso's Canvas is gone, as long as its people live on within Alicia, they are just as alive as before--they were always, to a degree, a part of her. As long as she remembers them, she contains their essence, and can Paint them anew in a new Canvas, and maybe that is just as much the "real them" as if they'd been re-Painted in their own Canvas.

This is, of course, wild speculation based on some philosophical ideas about the nature of art. I wouldn't say I necessarily think this is "canon" or that I'm arguing that this is "in-universe truth." But at the same time, given Expedition 33's extended metaphor about art and memory--how it literalizes the idea that artists put their soul into their work, for example, or treats Verso's Canvas as a physical representation of the Dessendre family's memory of the deceased Verso--I think it's an interesting avenue of thought, if nothing else.

It's also an extremely inconclusive answer to the initial question, and I can't help but love that in a shitty little gremlin sort of way. Are Painted beings real? They're as real as you see them as, my friend. The little literature devil inside me loves it when a question's answer is just as much of a question as the question itself.

If you read all of this, I have completely wasted your time, on purpose, and I thank you for the opportunity.

[queer-ragnelle]

Hi! I was wondering if you had any advice on how to craft a well-written, compelling Arthurian OC that isn't obnoxious or out of place but is still unique. I recognize the difficulty in doing so with so many different source texts (I'm most familiar with Le Morte, so that's usually my go-to) and the vast list of already existing characters. I'm just curious about your thoughts on the matter, since you're an author and also very knowledgeable about Arthuriana 💖

Hello there!

This is a tough question to answer! I think it's important to note that everyone will have a different opinion on this, but that shouldn't alter you writing your story how you want to. Some think adding any characters at all is too big of a change, while others write a full cast of original characters and then Merlin shows up randomly and makes the story "Arthurian."

I'm going to say something controversial.

Every Arthurian character is an OC.

Even King Arthur himself is an OC.

I'm going to elaborate on this quite a bit, as it's very important to me. But the TL;DR is that reading more will definitely help you conceptualize the boundaries of what's possible. Le Morte d'Arthur is a great start, but there's so much out there, both medieval and modern, that'll undoubtedly aid in your Arthuriana writing journey! :^)

While I do say things like "I love Arthurian OCs" as a means to convey that I view everyone's new creations as valid and interesting, I actually don't believe in a strong differentiation between Chretien de Troyes' Sir Lancelot or Marie of France's Sir Lanval and what you or I are writing today. We're participating in a tradition which can, at times, necessitate the creation of a new character or repurposing of an existing one. I think as soon as you create a character for your Arthurian story, they're an Arthurian character. Some refer to Lancelot or Galahad as "French OCs" or call Knight of the Cart or the Vulgate "fanfiction" as a means to degrade it's validity. Some seem to have an arbitrary timeline on which the full body of Arthurian works is measured, and the more recently something was written, the less authentic it becomes. I think they're wrong. I believe that whether or not we enjoy an installment in the ever expanding Arthurian tradition is irrelevant; it's all equally entitled to a measure of respect, even the new characters. No character or story is lesser than another by virtue of its age or language of origin or target audience or medium. I disdain the excess of scrutiny put upon certain arbitrary groupings of Arthurian tradition. Each story is full of original characters and building on the foundations of what came before. That's the nature of creative influence. Whether or not Arthur was a real person at some point in history is moot. The guy in the Mabinogion or the Vulgate or Le Morte d'Arthur or BBC Merlin is a character. He's a tool to tell a story. Such as your creation will be! Your brand new Arthurian character stands equally with all the rest who preceded them. :^)

Now, it can be helpful to distinguish between a medieval character and a modern one, sure, as they may represent different things depending on what point in history (or part of the world) they were created in. But Arthuriana isn't a franchise one must obtain express permission to contribute to, and it doesn't have a "canon," so therefore differentiating a character as "other" can be counter productive when developing a story. I don't believe Sir Robin from Monty Python and The Holy Grail (1975) or Brian from The Adventures of Sir Lancelot (1956-1957) are any less valuable as characters, even if they do draw on traits of existing Arthurian motifs in order to commentate on them or otherwise expand. In fact I think they're great characters and serve their narrative roles beautifully. One simple and one complex. I recommend watching those to see how it's done well and that may help you develop your own characters. But I'll delve into it a bit here to illustrate what I mean.

Sir Robin carries the coat of arms of a chicken, he's a cowardly knight followed around by a troupe of musicians that sing songs about all of his exploits. That is, the things he's run away from. Rather than use an existing Arthurian character and degrading them, Monty Python developed Sir Robin in order to tell their joke.

The flipside is Brian, a bona fide kitchen boy, who attaches himself to Sir Lancelot and desires to squire for him. Brian's narrative purpose is to deconstruct the nobility in a way that Gareth Beaumains, whom Brian is plainly inspired by, could not. Brian begins as a true serf forced to endear himself to Sir Lancelot to elevate his station. Merlin forges papers of nobility to convince King Arthur that Brian is worthy of this privilege. Even after that, Brian must face the brutality of his fellows while living in the barracks with them, as they don't take kindly to a "smelly kitchen boy" in their midst, plotting to get Brian to incriminate himself as a thief and get evicted from Camelot by Sir Kay. This role is incongruous with Gareth as Sir Gawain's brother, who was always noble, always a prince, and merely cloaked himself in the guise of poverty to prove a point. Gareth could return to the comforts of wealth whenever it suited him and his reason for going stealth was to intentionally distance himself from that privilege. The character Brian exists in order to commentate on the injustice of the upper class's oppression and dehumanization of the lower class in a way Gareth, or even Tor, could not, as they are of noble blood, even if it came by way of reveal. That's why Brian is a great addition to the Arthurian tradition.

Really, it comes down to treating the creation of your new Arthurian character like you would developing one for any other work, one entirely separate from the tradition. If they're a good character, they're a good character! Try not to get hung up too much on whether or not they're going to mesh well with the rest of the cast. For centuries, writers have transformed historical figures into Arthurian characters. (See: King Mark of Kernow better known as the Cuckhold King from the Prose Tristan, Owain mab Urien better known as Sir Yvain from Knight of the Lion by Chretien de Troyes, Saint Derfel better known as Derfel Gadarn from The Warlord Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell, etc.)

Speaking of Prose Tristan, would anyone consider Sir Dinadan an OC? Or Sir Palomides? They're characters added to a story drawing from a much, much older tradition, and I think they enrich the story. I feel likewise about the many Perceval Continuations, including the German Parzival by Wolfram von Eschenbach, which adds a half brother named Sir Feirefiz, or names Chretien's anonymous haughty maiden Orgeluse. What about Sir Aglovale's son Moriaen in the Dutch tradition? Amurfina in German Diu Krone by Heinrich von dem Türlin? Morgan le Fay's daughter Puzella Gaia in Italian La Tavola Ritonda? Not to mention the countless Middle English additions. The Green Knight and his wife? Dame Ragnelle and Sir Gromer? Or how about everyone's favorite Savage Damsel, Lynette of Castle Perilous? Is she not a late-era addition to the tradition courtesy of the man, the myth, the legend, Sir Thomas Malory himself? And then here comes Tennyson, who read Le Morte d'Arthur, and got to the end of dear Gareth Beaumains' story and had the same reaction we all did: "What the hell? He marries her sister?" And then he went about changing that in Idylls of the King. Speaking of Lynette, what's up with her niece Laurel? She's just a name on a page, the vast majority of retellings choose to ignore her, even if they do keep Lynette and Lyonesse. Laurel can scarcely be called a character, after all. She doesn't even have dialogue. So as I've gone out of my way to make her a prominent, fully developed character, with her own culture and back story and motivations, does that make her an OC of mine? And Henry Newbolt who included Laurel in his play Mordred: A Tragedy. And Sarah Zettel, who wrote from Laurel's point of view in Camelot's Blood. We did all the work, but we threw an Arthurian name on the character, so therefore, she isn't ours? But if we changed her name, she would be? Who gets to decide?

All of the Arthurian characters belong to all of us. That's the beauty of writing in a long-standing tradition, which exists apart from all other forms of writing. We have complete creative liberty to do what we want and refer to it how we want and no person or corporation or anyone can dictate otherwise. The intellectual property of Arthuriana belongs to the people. So invent a brand new wife for Gawain, and well, you're only the millionth author to do it! Just make sure she's an interesting character and that's literally the only requirement. Can't wait to meet her. (And all others you create!)

Have a great day!

[fereldanwench]

i'm still holding off final judgement until the gameplay today, but seeing some stills on twitter kind of helped me solidify what i found so off-putting about the style in the companion trailer

although before i post those, a few counter arguments because i'm already tired of ppl bashing the ppl who aren't vibing with it, and my head is clear enough to put these thoughts down:

"cinematic trailers rarely look like the actual game" - true to a point. however: 1) typically cinematic trailers strive to look like a higher definition version of the game, which seems to be the opposite here. in the case of DAO and DA2, i would say the cinematic trailers actually strived for more realism, not stylization, as that was the trend at the time. 2) this is a cinematic trailer, but it is also done in the game engine so it's not unreasonable to assume that the end product is gonna look somewhat similar 3) this was supposed to be their best foot forward so suddenly going "don't worry, it's gonna look better in-game" is just a bad marketing move. it's not on the audience to give this company the benefit of the doubt (particularly in light of all the shit that has gone down there in the past decade)

"not everything has to be super realistic!" - agreed! not liking elements of this particular style doesn't mean i'm opposed to stylization in DA at all. i think DA2 is much more stylized than DAO, and not only does it look nicer, it looks more distinctly dragon age. DAO visually is also very generic, especially for its time. i still love the almost painterly look of DA2, even all these years later

and i think DAI has issues with the character models, especially the uncanny valley disconnect between the really stiff animations and realistic faces (having played it within the past year, they've aged pretty roughly), but in terms of environment and armor and whatnot, it did build off the style presented in DA2 in a way that effectively modernized it for that era. it did go for a more realistic look, but it was cohesive and still distinctly dragon age

"people reacted like this to DA2 and DAI's trailers too" - no, they did not, lmao. DA2's trailers were the reverse--they looked more realistic than the actual game. now there was some backlash against the stylistic choice in the actual game. i remember david gaider talking about it in a panel at dragon con in 2012--apparently ppl were upset that the companions looked like they were made with cosplayers in mind, which i thought was an interesting criticism. but no, the trailers did not get this sort of response.

and DAI's trailers used a lot of in-game footage, and the cinematic ones were both pretty accurate to the game and well-received by the audience. DAI's marketing was also absolutely bonkers and nonstop for like 9 months before the game was released, which in hindsight i think was way too much, but in terms of visuals, we knew exactly what we were getting.

"you guys just think anything with a style to it looks like fortnite" - lmao, okay, yeah, describing it as fornite is probably unfair and inaccurate, but i know for me, i kind of use it as a shorthand to reflect my general dissatisfaction with the way so many 3D styles (in both games and movies) just have this bland, cartoonish look to them. the pixar-ification of everything. i just don't like it.

and the logo with the bright purple and overly smooth text doesn't really help here either. i think a less saturated and darker purple paired with a grungier font would also help in making this feel like less like fornite season 3458345: dragon age avengers.

plus it was originally gonna be a live service game and i think that it still has some of that dna artistically

SO ANYWAY

these stills, which i think are also in-game engine but im not entirely sure if they're from cinematics, gameplay, or just renders but they seem to be in-line with the trailer:

and seeing emmrich and to a lesser extent neve in these pics solidified why the stylization didn't work for me on a visual level (never mind it being paired with the light-hearted planning-for-a-silly-little-heist vibes)

so when i first saw the trailer, and i saw varric, i was like "nice"

he looked like a higher definition, older version of a DA2/DAI hybrid of his model. he looked really good. i thought harding looked good, too. it did take me a minute to realize who she was, but it really wouldn't be a DA trailer if we weren't left wondering who tf a returning character was lmao (remember the confusion over alistair's appearance in one of the DAI trailers? this is actually tradition now)

but as the trailer goes on, the style doesn't even stay consistent--it just gets progressively more cartoonish right up to emmrich, which is the exact moment that made me go WHAT

he looks like a cartoon character. the hard lines in his face, the stiffness of his hair, his overall proportions--he looks like he should be a villain in a pixar movie. like i'm digging his overall vibe and as a concept of a character design, i love it. but this execution of it next to fellow old wrinkled man varric looks so off

and then we go right into davrin who is beautifully rendered and designed--he doesn't look out of place next to varric or harding

some characters have the soft, wispy hair while others have hair that looks like a hard shell with lines carve into it. some characters have finely detailed wrinkles while others have thick, cartoonish ones. some characters have realistic proportions while others have more exaggerated features.

stylization is only effective when it's purposeful and consistent, and from what i've seen so far, it's not. it's all over the place.

so there's my thesis about why i dont like the art direction in the trailer lmao

and like i've been saying since it dropped, i am reserving full judgment for the gameplay reveal, but based on the other stuff bioware has teased, i'm not expecting this aspect to change too much. i've seen other ppl who were on the fan council thing say the tone in the game is more in-line with the tone in the other games, so maybe that'll help smooth out this disconnect

[starsofbloodauthor]

Blowing the dust off this account to go on a rant about fallout because I don’t want to pay for X premium to not be subject to a character limit.

Seeing posts on X criticizing Fallout for the world still being shitty after 200+ years. And how “society” should have been rebuilt in those two centuries. That it’s only because Todd Howard has some personal vendetta against the notion of recovering from nuclear war. Blah blah blah

I don’t know how well I can properly articulate it but Fallout games we play shouldn’t be in a rebuilt society. It’s indicative of progress, and the franchise’s tagline and central theme “war never changes” is very much the antithesis of progress.

For my argument/rant we will focus on the NCR.

The NCR started small and quickly grew and grew and grew as a result of the player character’s actions in Fallout 1 & 2 helping to stabilize the regions and enable their exponential growth leading to the events of Fallout: New Vegas where most fans get familiar with the NCR. On the surface level, the NCR is full of good folks with sensible morals and that’s largely true. But you’re also quick to learn that the NCR is rife with corruption at almost every level. That their army’s supply lines run thin. That they’ve been pursuing an aggressively expansionist agenda to secure more territory, more production resources, more taxpayers. That half their military command is inept and constantly getting good young men and women killed. Just as the NCR came to embody pre-war America’s ideals and values, so too did it come to embody many of its flaws. It’s implied as well that the NCR had working cars for its citizens in addition to the vertibird that flew President Kimball to Hoover Dam for his ill-advised speech. For all its flaws, the NCR was a beacon of progress, a shining example of post-war prosperity.

And then the fallout show nuked Shady Sands. The NCR is likely not totally extinct as a major faction on the west coast, but it’s been majorly hurt by forces beyond its ability to control or counter.

And that was good for the series.

Not interested in arguing whether or not Todd Howard has a personal vendetta against New Vegas and the NCR, I don’t know the guy personally. But when a faction in Fallout rises to prominence, they eventually fall back to the dirt all that much harder.

The Master’s army

The enclave

The brotherhood

The legion

The NCR

They all get big, and then they fall right back down. Usually they get to move to some other region to try again, but even so “war never changes.”

It’s not that society can’t be rebuilt because of a lack of technology, the legion disproves that. It’s not that society can’t be rebuilt because bureaucrats can’t get it right, the NCR disproves that. Society can be rebuilt in Fallout. But when you rebuild society, that society eventually either goes to war or has war waged upon it. And that destroys will destroy one or more of the societies engaging in it.

The player character should be free from the trappings of such societal conflict. Your initial goal in a main quest-line is not “I will pick my favorite side and we’ll win the war.” It’s “I need to save my vault,” “I need to save my tribe,” “I need to find my dad,” “I need to find that guy who shot me,” “I need to find my son.” It is in pursuit of these goals which are seemingly unrelated to the greater conflict of the region that you properly explore the wasteland. That you help or hurt the people living there. Your character is the fish out of water, the odd one out, the free agent with the means to get shit done. You are the catalyst for change. What would be your motivation to change shit in a functional society like the NCR had? Even if you had an interesting story to tell, a conflict to resolve, would you really be playing Fallout? Or would you be playing some other IP pretending to be Fallout?

Anyway yeah, running out of points to make without repeating myself or getting wildly off topic.

Final notes:

-fuck NCR

-War never changes

[lumilasi]

Finished her up finally.

She's sort of the antagonist boss for the Sterling family/Starknight 'story', though not the "main" villain, as the endgame boss actually first needs to regain his memory lol (She might even end up helping the good guys at that point with her massive amount of knowledge that could be useful for them)

She is the boss for Cornel Sala, AND Vincent DeVos/Vee, who's my character Angus' toxic ex friend.

More info about Camilla below:

Name: Camilla Barone

Age: 39

Height: 171 cm

A mob family leader who is the head of the family opposing Vermontes

Role: One of the antagonists for the Starknight tag

Love interest: She has somewhat of a physical relationship with her vampiric right hand man, though its purely casual, neither she or him take it very seriously.

Subordinates:  Vincent DeVos (A plaque demon) Samar (A Seemingly ancient Soul Eater, who turns out to be the brother of the Soul Eater King/Deity) Cornel Sala (A vampire)

Rival: The Sterling family, a Sorceress-Grimmhound family that often meddles in their business to prevent the harm they may cause.

Powers:

Sharp shooter: Camilla has a very good aim with a gun, and is also excellent at using a rifle.

High intellect: she is a very good tactician, and is able to consider her next several moves ahead. She isn't the type to rush into action needlessly, and will listen if told doing something is just far too risky despite short-term benefit.

Knowledge of Ether: She knows a lot about the mythical world, mythical beings and magic thanks to Cornel, and always makes sure to keep as much knowledge as possible stored for future uses. This enables her to, for example, counter things such as Grimmhounds (Diojas' bio dad Alexander) or how to diffuse dark magic spells. (Azul's forte)

Natural authority: She has this natural vibe to her that makes people listen to her. When her brother mysteriously ended up dead, nobody questioned her and were fine with her becoming the next boss - despite her gender - because she's always had more respect from the members than her brother did. Also she's guarded by 2 VERY terrifying men typically (Samar and Cornel) so you don't wanna mess with her.

Weaknesses:

Being a human, she is fairly defenseless against a lot of magic things, if she hasn't looked into it enough, and therefore can still be caught off-guard even if she has studied her mythical enemies a lot.

Her job is very straining and stressful mentally, making her struggle with normal socialization, which does make her feel very lonely and isolated at times. Her mythical guardians are always by her side, but ultimately, deep down, she knows they're not the same as her fellow humans. (Also she really wishes she had a gal-pal to chat with)

Having been almost killed once before she can be pretty paranoid about her safety, even when being protected by a literal vampire and a soul eater. However, paradoxically she then might be too comfortable around them, sometimes putting herself at risk when Cornel is going feral for example.

Personality:

Camilla is very serious and closed-off most of the time, and tends to not care for unnecessary chit-chat. She is very cautious and considers her every move carefully. Being a mob boss means she has hardened herself for such things like violence, and didn't even shed a tear when her brother was killed.

She isn't entirely heartless though; for example, she tends to not be happy if children are mixed into the business somehow, or if needless violence is used. She also genuinely feels sympathy for Vee, and them being rejected by someone he loves, as well as pities their inability to see why that happened.

Camilla does prefer avoiding unnecessary violence whenever able, because she doesn't find it that productive and could just trigger unnecessary cycles of vengeance that is bad for business.

BG Story

Camilla used to be her brother's closest confidant, until he started to obsess over the mythical beyond what was typical of their family, to the point of wanting to start a "relationship" with one working for them - a Grimmhound Roman Bosco. She observed from the sidelines as he began dappling with things he didn't fully understand and without their usual safety precautions, to the point he didn't even always listen to the warnings given to him by Cornel Sala - a vampire working for Camilla who knows his shit - about being careful with what he got his hands to.

However, once Roman managed to escape her brother's clutches, he fully went off the deep end, forgetting all about his family duties and only focusing on in his pursuit to find Roman and get him back. At this point, Camilla approached Cornel, telling him she was concerned her brother could end up destroying their family if this kept up. He agreed with her assessment, admitting he'd been concerned with his more and more unhinged behavior; if he started getting too careless with his dappling with magic, that would be bad for Cornel too as him being alive could get exposed to the forces that had once hunted him before his supposed death. Sometime after this conversation, Cornel kills her brother secretly.

Now the new head of the family, Camilla is introduced to an old servant of the Barones, who was invited in to become her personal guardian as per tradition in their family (her brother had refused this offer at the time as he had Roman): a man who'd served their parents and grandparents; A soul eater called Samar. She is initially miffed about this, but he quickly becomes a surrogate father figure to her.

Fun Facts:

She's Demiromantic bi.

Camilla sometimes wears sunglasses, or glasses with one blackened lens, instead of an eyepatch.

Camilla doesn't like drinking alcohol, she hates how it can hindrance your decision making ability. She lets her companions check all her drinks beforehand too, to make sure someone isn't trying to smuggle her alcohol or something worse.

Barones are mainly "officially" known for smuggled goods, counterfeit items business, money laundering and arms dealing. (Camilla's brother wanted to get into drug trade too, but she finds that too risky and messy)

Their more mythical, occultist business is a well kept secret that only select few are aware of.

She has been offered to heal her eye by both Cornel and Vee, but has declined their offers, not really trusting either with vulnerable medical things like an eye.

Camilla doesn't fully trust either Cornel or Vee, but does trust Samar due to him having been in their family for so long. Ironically the person who stabs her in the back (involuntarily in a way, circumstances force it) ends up being him.

Camilla is aware there's sexual tension between Cornel and Sam as well, and doesn't really care as its not like she's in a serious relationship with the vampire.

She pities Vee, as she could tell almost instantly - alongside everyone else pretty much - why he was rejected by Angus. She is also not always that happy when Cornel tricks him into doing unpleasant work he's too lazy to do.

While DeVos sometimes freaks her out due to his whole plague demon deal, she tends to still be fairly nice to him, seeing him almost like a poor lost child who doesn't really understand yet where he went wrong.

The simple pattern tattoo she has is in reference to their late mother who also had similar tattoo, just around her collarbone.

[princeescaluswords]

Words Aren't Necessary

Written for Meta May Monday 2024's prompt: Pack.

I enjoyed Teen Wolf The Movie, all-in-all. Like any piece of media, there were things I wanted that I didn't get and things that I felt should have happened that didn't. Now, while there are things I didn't want and things that I feel shouldn't have happened, for me it is always beneficial to examine the media closely and answer the question, why did they do that?

One of the things that displeased me initially was the appearance of distance between Liam and Scott. (And the absence of Hayden, but if I talk about that, I'll never get to my point). Liam and Scott didn't have a real conversation in the movie beyond a few shouted instructions at each other. Yes, part of the reason for this was trying to fit a whole story into a little over two hours, but they could have at least had a moment together.

However, looking back over time, I had an epiphany. Perhaps that wasn't an oversight but a conscious decision. I decided to look at their relationship in the movie within the context of the show, and I concluded that this was not just a production necessity but -- especially in the light of the "Scott roars and the pack's eyes light up" scene -- a conscious decision. Perhaps words aren't necessary to reaffirm the bond between alpha and beta.

I will explore this by looking at their relationship in the movie and comparing it with two different scenes: the opening when the possessed wolf comes onto the lacrosse field in Said the Spider to the Fly (6x01) and the scene between Derek and three of his betas in Restraint (3x07).

When the movie starts, Scott is in Los Angeles, and he tells Chris that he hasn't been back in Beacon Hills for a long time. Liam lives and works with Hikari in a place that could very well be on the other side of the world but was never specified. Scott and Liam are both drawn to Beacon Hills for different reasons, yet at first, they don't seem to have had much to do with each other. When they do meet up, there are clues that they haven't become strangers. Scott may be surprised to see Liam, but then again Liam was living far away. On the other hand, Liam doesn't have to introduce Hikari. Liam doesn't have to explain the reasons why he and Hikari would come here. Scott can give Liam instructions immediately, and there's no push back. They work together without any of the necessary establishing scenes that people who have lost track of each other would need. I point out that this is also true for Derek, Lydia, and Malia. Malia and Scott have issues, but even so, it doesn't stop them from working together; it doesn't even make it more difficult. Malia tries to tell Lydia that she missed her, which Lydia gently rebuffs, but that's set to the side.

In fact, the person that Scott must talk to the most is Allison, bewitched by the nogitsune. He establishes motive, explains decisions, and seeks to build trust. Melissa tells Scott that it's important to help her remember who she was. Allison was pack. Just like Liam, just like Derek, just like Lydia and Malia.

Now, a possible counter argument is that this was just made to cut down on exposition in the movie due to time requirements, but I feel there are many scenes (especially between Stiles and Scott, but I'm not going to address those because Stiles wasn't in the movie) where trust was demonstrated in the series by there being no need to explain it to each other.

An important scene which I feel demonstrates this is at the beginning of 6B. Liam, having trouble because Hayden has moved away, almost gets caught transforming in the middle of practice. Scott has to talk him down. Yet, when the diseased wolf (possessed by the Anuk-Ite, though no one knows that yet) shows up and menaces Nolan and the lacrosse team, Scott and Liam immediately begin working together without talking. Scott doesn't have to ask Liam to come with him; Liam doesn't have to inquire about their plan. They walk in unison even though Liam was having trouble not five minutes before.

A counterpoint is the scene in Restraint, where Derek is trying to formulate a plan against the kanima and Gerard, and he gets frustrated because his betas keep questioning his decisions. They're looking at the restraints they're going to use for the full moon, and Isaac is asking him question after question. Derek explodes with "We can't!" to these questions which seem to be quite reasonable. Why the anger? Because pack should mean that his betas shouldn't have to badger him about what they were going to do. Isaac never stops questioning Derek, never stops demanding explanations. Eventually, Isaac joins up with another pack.

Of course, the writing decisions are influenced by the limitations of the medium, especially time requirements. Davis very clearly didn't want to spend a lot of time on exposition and explanation. That wasn't what he was interested in. Yet, I feel that the lack of conversation in the movie couldn't be Davis's disinterest in Liam and Scott's relationship, because otherwise there would be little reason for Liam to be there at all. Liam didn't know Allison; he wasn't invested, and if the film could do without Stiles, it could certainly do without Liam. But the narrative reason he was included was to underline the truth behind Scott's taunt to the nogitsune.

Scott: And I'm still standing. And I'm still the alpha.

The nogitsune wants their fun, and it pleases it to kill a pack's alpha right in front of them, and he is there alpha, and they're his betas. It even pretends to be a werewolf to twist the knife. He fails, of course, but Jeff didn't need to have the characters say the words to show that it is true.

[hadleysmis]

How many badly aged comments can we read about 'slang' speakers?

Using Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, Donougher trans.

My reaction from reading it (I am not a literature student nor do I remember any literary analysis skills):

Let's start with a very nice visual that doesn't invoke a negative imagery: Thievery + hunger —> Idleness

Hugo calls slang to be a product of the aforementioned characteristics, with idleness being 'a mother'. While theft was the son, and hunger, the daughter.

Idleness + Thievery + hunger —> Slang

This is the very first impression of slang that Hugo makes in this tangent. The very first, as in from the first line.

He then is quick to compare ‘slang’ to a class of people. This is important, because he soon talks about slang is monstrous and are akin to wounds of language, therefore morality and society.

“… allowed their villains to speak in the language that comes naturally to the…”

He believes that slang is natural to the speaker, and somehow their speech in it of itself is a crime (against French).

However, he later on contradicts this (in fact, he swings and swings on this point) that slang is something that is learnt.

Slang conflated with patois counter: 1 (this will go up soon enough)

In the debate Hugo makes from the tangent, he gives validity to being scared by Argot and Patois users.

Considering that the first usage of the word patois pops up after Hugo brings up criminals, the word association and connotations of violence is quickly linked. In fact, throughout the chapter, he encourages harmful debates and prejudiced opinions and gives validity to them.

He obviously doesn’t seem so fussed by feeding the prejudice (which helps run and maintain oppression), by asking, “Since when has it been wrong to delve too deep when probing a wound? To go too far in sounding the depths of an abyss or of a society?”

White saviour complex is quickly shown, along with the ‘unempathetic researcher’ role. He doesn’t actually study anything. He’s looking at it through his heavily fogged up, biased lenses.

He looks down on the people who use it, and acts like he is inherently higher, and so are the readers, in the hierarchy, and they get to scoff and complain about those who are below. 

Well then, who are the ones that are below the hierarchy? The illiterates. The ones who can’t read the book. He uses collective sense of identity, positioning the reader to agree with him, and call the audience and himself “intellectual”.

Furthermore, the way he conflates patois, slang, and argot cannot be taken lightly. Patois refers to rural or regional dialects, which had the connotations to linguistic inferiority, but it did not equate to slang at all.

Slang, as we know today to be easily looked down upon from the next generation to the other, as well as from one community to the other, is still and always, perpetually be a victim to prescriptivist ideology. But it is not patois, it is not argot, and it is not a dialect.

All of them however unite in two things: 1) Connotations of linguistic inferiority; 2) All being @ -ed at by Victor Hugo.

Then, we have argot. That’s something that is uniquely different from the previous two, with its own characteristics which bars from any logical attempt in grouping them up together in willy nilly arguments such as this. Argot pertains specific characteristics, such as it being ‘encrypted’ almost, with it being difficult to the non-speakers to understand them.

Sure, slang can be difficult to understand, but it is not encrypted per se.

What he’s doing is, grouping completely different phenomenons together, and dumping White Saviour, racist, pro-colonial thoughts all at once on the pages, and invites his literate readers to join and do the same.

He’s fanning the flames, and also creating the us vs them argument.

By the end of the page, he asks “Why not study everything?” I would argue that he’s not really studying it, actually. You’re spouting your biases and acting like it’s irrefutable science.

And yes, you read that correctly: all this came from the first page of the tangent. I haven’t even touched on the things he brings up in the subsequent pages.

I am not going to say that I understand French history, language, and literature, etc. I'm transparent in my lack of wish and interest in delving into the contextual realm of references Hugo makes with things that's happening around him.

Therefore, I exclude any references to books, authors, figures, etc. that I do not understand. So, this post could've been longer if I knew what he was saying half the time.

Before anyone starts, I am not being paid to analyse or promote Les Misérables, and that's why I'm never motivated to learn about France, because I can very much enjoy the book without needing to learn all that. It is entertaining and great as a book when pulled away from its references as well. The references only heightens the quality, of which was already high to begin with.

As I was reading along, I attached my live reviews in the form of comments. Although the first page didn't have that much funny content, I did end up writing some D: along the way. Some D:( were also applied.

[ccborrega]

A HANDY GUIDE TO KNOWING WHICH FRANKELDA ENGLISH DUB YOU ARE WATCHING BY SOMEONE WHO'S GONE THROUGH BOTH:

It's been brought to my attention that some, ahem, unofficial streaming sites have the old english dub done in what was likely a severe time crunch by a studio that... wasn't really prepared for the task back in 2021, rather than the new and improved one released at the beginning of this month, which results in people meeting excitement over the english version with puzzlement and even indignation having experienced the former rather than the latter.

Here's a few pointers to help you spot which one you're watching:

Titles. @figmentedjedi brought it up in a post already but the 2023 dub has Frankelda herself read it where the old one has Herneval do it.

2023 dub has inserts for anything shown in screen that is written in spanish and otherwise incomprehensible without translation, included the titles of the stories Frankelda reads.

New dub consistently and constantly misses loops and just leaves characters flapping without anything coming out. The best example to this is Nemo's counter during the Gnome's song, where he's very clearly singing but nothing can be heard.

This is where the whole 'Old dub didn't really have any involvement or even revision of the Ambriz Brothers' comes in stronger but you know how the show's title is 'Frankelda's Book of Spooks'? Well, there they call the creatures in her stories 'Scares' for reasons I still can't discern, my best guess is they didn't really have any quality control on board with the project. Long story short, if they say 'Scares', it's the old dub.

If El Coco calls himself 'Boogaboo' and is autotuned AF in his song, you're watching the old dub. New dub has him introducing himself with both El Coco and The Boogeyman and has the same voice actor that voiced him in spanish doing the song. Trust me, it's night and day.

I feel kinda bad about pointing this out because I still insist the actors in the old dub seem to me to have been doing the best they could with what they'd been handed and this seems to have been completely on the production... but the english in the old one is rather clumsy. To be clear, in order to translate from spanish to english, you are often better off pretty much rewriting the sentence AFTER having understood it in it's entirety because the grammar and even the sentence structure can be vastly different between one another, so translating literally and word by word often results in complete nonsense or at least very, very awkward wording both from english to spanish and viceversa. This wasn't done here and it results in a lot of times where understanding what was said takes you a bit because the structure of the sentence was all wonky.

That aside, grammar as a whole wasn't as thoroughly consulted as it could have been. So there's quite a bit of fumbles. The ones I remember the most is the Mermaid saying 'All these innocent childs' and Nemo saying 'Chores' instead of 'Homework' (Tarea can both mean homework and stuff you do around the house so that was probably where they got confused) The new dub is a lot more competent in this aspect.

This one's more of a nitpick I guess but in the old dub they have no idea whatsoever of how to pronounce some of the kids' names. Tere becomes Terry, Uli becomes Julie.

They also call Pan de Muerto 'Bread of the Dead', which... it's not that it's bad but who even calls it that? We don't call Croissants 'Crescent moons' so I see no reason to, and if you have no idea what Pan de Muerto is, that name makes it sound unpleasantly like something made FROM dead people. 'Day of the dead bread', which is used in the new dub is not only clearer to what it IS, something that is consumed in the Day of the Dead, but they use it alongside the original name because that IS its name. I never understand when dubs want to completely erase the cultural identity of what they are representing, and they did a wonderful job going around that in the 2023 dub where the old one even calls them 'Breadrolls' at one point.

This is where I insist the actors at least had some idea of what they were doing for the most part but the old dub adds some reactions that were never there for the original latam track and weren't put in the new one either.

Both Totolina and Francisca's grandma in the old dub sound like they're trying for a really posh british accent (Which is hilarious in context, as it was Francisca's DAD who came from... I wanna say Cornwall as it seems more likely given the time period and provided lore, but her mother's side of the family are locals to Hidalgo.) where the new dub has a very neutral english. She is also voiced by Debra Wilson, and particularly 'You can transform', the witches' song, takes full advantage of her range and energy.

This one's even a little bit obvious but the new dub was released with a visual remaster, making it so the old dub is only available with the old visuals. The newer one is, then, only available with the remaster. Here's a couple of pics for comparison of one of the moments where it's the most evident.

Pre-Remaster:

Post-Remaster.

Finally (And this should make it a lot easier.) the songs are wildly different between one version and another, and you can reference what the new dub versions are easily because they've been posted both on Spotify and Youtube under the Water Tower Music account and the Frankelda's Book of Spooks topic. If the songs don't have those lyrics, then you're watching the old dub, simple as that.

Hope this helps and happy watching! Do watch the original with subs if it's at all possible because, I insist, it's amazing.

[thefifthnetwork]

Week 1: Flammable Hair Gel and a Talking Rabbit

For this first week, we only have one night of programming from The WB, as UPN didn't start until the 16th. Additionally, the second hour of The WB block was devoted to the first two episodes of Muscle, a short-lived soap opera parody that I'm unable to find any episodes of online, so we just have two sitcoms to start us off.

This is part of a project where I watch The WB and UPN on a 30 year delay. This is crossposted from my website, where you can find an interactive schedule for both networks, including where you can watch these shows today.

Wednesday January 11, 1995 The Wayans Bros. S1E01: "Goop-Hair-It-Is" - 8 PM on The WB

The first show to air on The WB was with The Wayans Bros., a sitcom about Shawn and Marlon Williams (played by the titular Shawn and Marlon Wayans), two brothers living in New York City. Also in the main cast are their diner-owning father (John Witherspoon) and Shawn's girlfriend Lisa (Lela Rochon).

The plot of this episode involves the brothers hosting an infomercial on public-access TV to sell a hair product called "Goop, Hair-It-Is" that Marlon created. They recruit Gary Coleman (appearing as himself) to be a celebrity endorsement [1] things seem to be going well until everyone's hair begins smoking [2] live on the air. Hijinks ensue.

Overall, a replacement-level sitcom episode, but it will be interesting to see how the show develops over its five seasons.

Unhappily Ever After S1E01: "Pilot" - 8:30 PM on The WB

Ron Leavitt co-created Married... with Children, which helped launch the Fox network, so it makes sense that The WB would go to him for one of their launch shows.

Unhappily Ever After is about Jack and Jennifer Malloy (Geoff Pierson and Stephanie Hodge), a couple in the process of divorcing, and their kids Ryan (Kevin Connolly), Tiffany (Nikki Cox), and Ross (Justin Berfield [3]). There's also a talking stuffed rabbit, Mr. Floppy [4].

I enjoyed this one more, though that may be partly due to this pilot better establishing its show's premise. There's a very 90s-misogyny/I-hate-my-wife vibe to it, but it also kinda felt like it was parodying those tropes? Maybe I'm giving it too much credit, but, overall the jokes landed with me. [5]

I did notice a prominent use of the r-slur by the rabbit in the end credits scene. I feel like that's the sort of thing I could keep a running counter for as I enter this world of nineties and aughts TV [6].

Muscle: "Episode 1" - 9 PM on The WB

Muscle: "Episode 2" - 9:30 PM on The WB

As I mentioned in the opening, I haven't been able to find any full episodes of this show online, so I'm not able to watch it. I did find the opening credits at least [7]. If anyone reading this knows of some source for it, please let me know.

That it for this week. UPN starts next week with programming on both Mondays and Tuesdays, and most of it is actually available in some form, plus we get one more WB sitcom added to the mix, so next week's schedule has a bit more for us to watch. See you then!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Marlon kidnaps and then fails to recruit SNL-star Garrett Morris, also appearing as himself. ↩

Marlon reveals that the ingredients were Vaseline, bacon fat, and Drano. ↩

Didn't recognize him during the show, but he played Reese on Malcolm in the Middle ↩

Voiced by Bobcat Goldthwait and puppeted by Allan Trautman ↩

I particularly liked the bit where the kids are at school and Ryan asks whether "all the girls are lesbians" because he can't get a date. Having each girl he points at immediately cling to the girl next to her made it clear that the joke is that Ryan is an asshole, not anything homophobic. ↩

Transphobic jokes would be the other big one, but I didn't catch any in either sitcom episode I watched this week, so that's nice, I guess. ↩

Huh, Alan Ruck was in this ↩

[pbandjesse]

Apparently I was upset enough this morning to make James very worried. I didn't mean to worry them. I just felt really low. I was so sad and my energy was all wrong. I think it was mostly because I didn't sleep amazing. But I was also just. So sad. If Jess didn't already leave her house I probably would have tried and cancel on her. But I'm really glad I didn't. We had a really nice and really productive day.

It was very cold. Like I can't say it was like Minnesota but I haven't been there in a long time. And at points today the wind chill was 11 degrees. It's like it became winter all at once. I kind of loved it though. Like I didn't love being cold. But I love winter. I just hope we actually get the promised snow.

I tried to shake off my sads. I got cleaned up and dressed. My hair needed to be washed but I didn't have time for it to dry this morning so that would become an evening activity. I had cereal. I got really upset with sweetp when he drank the milk out of my bowl when I turned around. Which scared him and made me more upset. He didn't deserve to be yelled at just because I was overstimulated.

I tried to chill out. I curled up in my new chair and waited for Jess to arrive.

And soon she was there. And it was really nice to have her here even if I wasn't able to show it right away.

I showed her the new baby things. How nice the baby room is coming together. The playpens and the floor mats. Later she would help me out the floor mat from Charlotte into its case. Which was honestly exhausting but I truly appreciated the help.

We wouldn't stay at the house for long. We loaded up in my car and we headed through the tunnel to the value village in Glen Burnie.

I almost immediately had my nerves tested when an old woman almost backed her car into us when we were walking through the parking lot. She didn't even look. I almost got knocked over and had to slam my hand on her window and jump out of the way. I was so upset I was screaming at her. She didn't even say she was sorry.

I was super distressed and had to take a few minutes in the store to text James what happened and calm down. Jess was distracted by going through all the DVDs. So that gave me some time. I looked at the books and would go over to the jewelry counter to see if they still had the Nantucket basket necklace they had had when I was there on New Year's Eve. And they did!

The man at the jewelry counter was razzing everyone and being very silly. And honestly I think it helped turn my mood. He said to hold the necklace he would need two credit cards and my social security number and I was just like. I cannot provide these things. And he said okay this time I'll let it slide. But we were both giggling and it made me feel more alright.

And the rest of the thrift trip was great. I would check all of the DVDs Jess got (about 20 of them!) for scratches while she searched the wall. We each would get a copy of Chicago which was wonderful. And it was a fun hunt.

We would also look at baby clothes. I am trying to not buy to many more before the baby shower but Jess really wanted to and we ended up getting so many absolute treasures. My two favorites are pictured above but we got a ton of other really good stuff.

I got the giant children's book pictured above, and a book of recipes originally printed in 1903. And a silly little metal flower do dad. Three rolls of floral wallpaper boarders that are just super cool. I have some ideas for them in the house.

It was a lot of fun. I even had a coupon at the end. Amazing.

We loaded up the car and headed back towards the city to our second stop. Which was Second Chance. We were finally going to use my gift card I got from the Fulwilers for my birthday last year. I have been holding onto it because it was for $250 and every time I went I would feel overwhelmed that I was wasting it. So I had barely used $50.

But we knocked out almost the whole $200 today. We spent $181. Jess found a 1930's pink rug, 9x12, for $92. And I would get a decorative piece of brass and a mug shelf. The same mug shelf she has in her kitchen that I loved. And I am just tickled with our purchases. She's bought me so many any clothes that it was not even a thought to use my gift card to get her the rug. I was mostly just worried about it fitting in the car.

There was a lot of other stuff I liked. But nothing I really wanted. I was mostly on the look out for baby things but the few baby things they had just weren't what I was hoping for. I still had a great time.

And thankfully the rug fit just fine once the guys loaded it in for us. And later on James would help move it from our car to her's. An excellent stop.

Our next stop before lunch was target. This was just a run in to see if they had the valentines collection. I really wanted to see the two 2 pieces sets of lounge wear. And I only ended up getting the one today but I may go back for the other if I keep thinking about it. I have been in the hunt for a good two piece sweat suit. I ended up with red gingham lounge pants and the matching grey sweatshirt with gingham heart applique. I may wear that tomorrow. Or maybe Monday.

We left there and went to lunch in highland town. I wanted to go to Mystic Burrito. Mostly because I wanted their nacho French fries. I don't love that they only have canned soda. But I still loved my food.

We got chips and salsa to share and talked about my induction and her trip to New York with her family this past week. And our late lunch was really nice. Jess says she liked golden west better, which is very fair. I do too. But this was a fun stop.

We went back to the house next. Gathered all of our purchases. And went inside to sort.

We sat on the floor and went through the baby clothes. Took all the tags off and put them in the laundry to be washed. Then we would jump into the big projects of the day: going through my clothes.

I needed to do a fairly large purge. And this would be pretty painful. I got rid of a lot of stuff I actually really love. But I just have to part with. Some of it was because it's just to worn. Some because I don't feel good when I wear them. Some because I have to many of one thing. But Jess was great help and support in this.

We started with sweaters. I didn't take a picture but it was honestly ridiculous how many sweaters and fleeces and sweatshirts I have. A bag in the basement. A pile in the wardrobe. A box in the guestroom. A steamer trunk of sweatshirts. And the ones I had hung in my closet. Jess was shocked when they just kept coming.

We did three quick piles. Yes/maybe/no. The yes and the maybes were easy

The nos were harder. We would spend time talking through them. I kept more sentimental ones then I planned. But Jess was proud of me for all that I would get rid of. She recognized how tough it was for me.

Clothes was easier. While she shopped my pile of things I was getting rid of, I spent time taking everything out of my closet and storage box. Sorting that into just. Huge piles.

It was easier for me to go through them. Things were still a bit tough. I had to put things in the get rid of pile that I absolutely love and have loved but things that just don't fit or I really don't think I will wear as my body is changing.

So I got rid of things. And Jess was very supportive. She would hang things in the closet that I chose and helped me out the rest in storage. It was s really productive afternoon but we were both so tired.

James got home as we were finishing up. They would help Jess get the rug into her car. And we would finish all of our projects. And soon Jess was heading home.

I was sad to see her go. But my back was hurting very bad and I was just needing some time to lounge.

James would baby me for a bit. We moved to the living room and had dinner. Well I had cake. And James had leftovers. And they held me in the couch. My back would hurt and stop hurting and hurt again. Can't win.

Eventually came upstairs and took a shower and washed my hair. And my y back still hurts but I am alright.

We are in bed watching our show now. Talking about our plans for a soft day tomorrow. I hope that the day is good. I hope you all sleep well and sleep safe. Goodnight everyone!

[dailyanarchistposts]

That humanity is somehow ‘out of balance’ with nature is hardly a topic of controversy nowadays. There is little question that humans are fouling the world to the point of suicide for us and mass extinction for all other life. To claim otherwise is ludicrous. In a variety of ways, people have attempted to grasp the problem, define it, and seek solutions. Of the many new and more faddish results, few have been as popular as Deep Ecology — also known as Biocentrism — the view that humans are acting out of excessive human-centredness (anthropocentrism) and thus destroying the planet and the rest of the species which have just as much ‘intrinsic right’ to live out their biological destiny as we do. Accordingly, Biocentrism (life/earth/nature centredness) calls for a new way of acting. Specifically, it calls for ‘earth-centred’ activity and thinking — putting the ‘earth first’ (instead of putting ourselves first) as a way out of the global dilemma.

In the following rant I wish to take a critical look at these assertions and show them for what I believe to be false, misleading and even counter-productive. I don’t mean this to be a sermon or some statement of absolute truth. No way!

What follows is, more than anything else, just my initial attempt at deciphering and understanding the relationships between some types of ideas and activity that I’ve discovered to be true to the best of my experience. The points I take on here, and their broader implications, have been of central importance to many of the great disputes and inconsistencies within what can loosely be called the ‘radical ecology movement’. Hopefully, my efforts here will help to encourage further discussion.

According to its proponents, Biocentrism is nature-centred living. It therefore must be premised on an irreconcilable separation of humans and nature. This is so because if humans were inherently natural beings — i.e: an equal part of nature, fully integrated into the natural flow of life — then to be human-centred (anthropocentric) would also imply being nature-centred (biocentric). But Biocentrism has already been defined by its practitioners to be the opposite of Anthropocentrism. So, according to Biocentrist thought (nature-centred philosophy) humans are irredeemably estranged from nature — or were never part of it in the first place — because ‘human’ is posited as the opposite of ‘nature’ (Anthropocentrism versus Biocentrism). Oddly, Anthropocentrism implies the very same thing. If Anthropocentrism is human-centred living and this is the opposite of Biocentrism, or nature-centred living, then once again, ‘human’ and ‘nature’ are opposite and therefore separate. It is a contradiction to say that two positions which are identical are, in fact, opposite. I will try to resolve this dilemma by going outside of what is common to both Biocentrism and Anthropocentrism — ideological thinking.

Ideological thinking is false consciousness. In other words, it is ideas and activity which originate elsewhere, outside of our own emotional and intellectual subjectivity, our identity. Ideology is when we mistake others’ thoughts for our own or when our own thoughts become rigid and fossilised and those thoughts come to control us — instead of the other way around. Marxism, all religions, guru cults are all very clear and obvious examples of ideological thinking. The politically correct sacred or official line is what one must adhere to. These ideas and demands on our activity originate not out of our own needs or desires, or ideas or personal lived experience or community, but from outside of us, externally to us. Other examples of ideologically (false) activity include: all political ideologies, ‘causes’ (doing things for ‘the cause’ instead of for our own needs), consumerism (externally created wants and preferences) and philosophies.

Both Biocentrism, and its necessary companion, Anthropocentrism, are ideologies. They both place external demands on our thinking and activity. Biocentrism differs from, say, Marxism, Christianity or the Moonies only in content. In form it is identical. How it differs is that it demands that we act, not according to the politically, morally or guru determined correct line, but to the ‘naturally’ correct one. ‘Nature’ — or an abstract overruling idea-of-nature replaces the guru, Bible or Party doctrines. There is no room in any of these (or any other ideologies) for the vagaries of human wildness, independent thought, activity or desire — or nature. All thought and activity is pre-scribed, determined externally to our human need, desires. At times we may agree with something that is also part of an ideology. But at this point, if it is truly no longer ideological, no longer external, no longer false consciousness, then we need not invoke the label, category, guru, or other ‘authority’ to justify our ideas and activity. In other words, instead of saying “according to the Marxist doctrines...”, or “The Bible says...”, or “Deep Ecology says...”, we would say “I think that...”, “I’ve noticed that...”, “I feel that...”, or “I’m doing this because...”. In this case — authentic, subjective ideas and activity based on our constantly changing needs and desires and always personally checked out against our own everyday lived experience — we can defend and explain our ideas and activity with arguments and examples that we know to be true because we’ve thought about or actually experienced them. (This has been called ‘theory’ — more on that later). In other words, we can claim our ideas as our own.

When we are in the grips of ideological thinking and acting we cannot do this because the ideas are not our own — we did not think, feel or experience them for ourselves. (Ideology, in this way, is administered thought, directed action — more on that later.) Therefore, we cannot argue, explain or justify them ourselves. Instead when someone opposes or challenges our ideology, we must put them into a category — i.e: label them as ‘other’. The label (authority, justification) of the ideologist is then used to justify evasion of any challenge. Some examples are “That’s just Marxism...”, “That’s Violence, we follow the Non-Violence Code...”, “She’s a Humanist...”. Thus, any challenge to an ideology can be dismissed as that of an ‘outsider’ in the eyes of the Party faithful who will all nod their heads in agreement at how clever the ideologist is.

Earlier I referred to ‘theory’. Theory is (to clearly define it at least for the sake of this discussion) the opposite of ideology. Ideology is inside-out theory. In ideological activity, the motivations come from without. With theory, motivations come from within, from our own subjective ideas, experiences, longings and needs. Thus theory can also be called ‘self-theory’. Most people today are walking around inside-out, motivated and directed by a myriad of things — anything but themselves. Theory is never static, never rigid. Our theory, if we fail to constantly evolve and test it against our experience and new information, quickly fossilises into ideological thinking.

When we base our activities and ideas on our self-theory, we can clearly see what the actuality behind new information is and choose to take or leave whatever we want. The self-theorist skips and dances through the great supermarket of ideology, tearing open every package, scattering the contents and appropriating what seems good and nourishing and discarding the rest. The ideologist shops carefully, or even perhaps on impulse, looking for just the right fit of pre-packaged ideas to take home and consume wholeheartedly — after paying at the register of course! Ideologists often are brand switchers. They’ll stick with one package of (non-) thought only until the next one in a shinier package comes along and lures them in. Other ideologists maintain a lifelong brand loyalty!

In the earlier discussion about ideologists using labels to evade challenges, we can say that the self-theorist can easily see — and see past — ideological boundaries of the opponent by watching for examples of ideological thinking such as statements like “Deep Ecology says that...”, “Marxism says that...”, “Gandhi would’ve said that...”. The person under the influence of an ideology, a false consciousness, on the other hand, having constructed these barriers, cannot see out. It has become a wall, a real barrier to advancement, a very un-radical thing to do.

Note also that just as the ideologist isn’t the originator of his/her ideas, so s/he neither claims the credit for them (e.g. “Biocentrism says...”). But here is another example of how the ideologist is mystified. Doctrines, ideologies and the like do not themselves talk and so it is wrong and misleading to say “Biocentrism says...”. Who is Biocentrism? When we begin to ask such questions, we can peel off layers of mystification and confusion like the skin of an onion until we can see what lies beneath: Actually Biocentrism doesn’t say anything. Actual people do and say things such as “Biocentrism this and that...”, not some mystical Biocentrism force or creature. It’s important to uncover the real source of ideas we hold so they can be fully evaluated on their actual content and meaning. If we then really do agree, then we can say “I think this and that...” and the ideas will no longer have control over us. We will control the ideas. Beware the dangers of attributing concrete activity and thinking to abstract concepts or doctrines or slogans.

In response to attacks, the person who engages in ideological thinking and activity simply builds higher and bigger walls. To continue this imagery for a moment longer, we can see that eventually the ideologist will be overwhelmed by the theorist who, being free to think, evaluate and rove around, will eventually find the cracks and weak spots that will bring the whole thing down with little effort. Imagine a guerrilla group with a radical self-theory challenging a monolithic state military force under the grip of a rigid chain of command (external control, ideology). This whole preceding discussion has obvious relevance for anyone engaged in direct subversive resistance — or think they are: ideology creeps up where you’d least expect it. But you can draw you own conclusions on that...

I’ve tried to present a fairly clear and simplified (if not simplistic) picture of what ideological activity is, how it operates and how it can limit us. I’ve tried to contrast that with theory, a better way to understand the world and think and act. What I’ll try to do now is explain how ideology is the death knell of radical change, of humanity, of nature and of the earth and wilderness. I showed at the very beginning how Biocentrism (an ideology, a category of Nature-ally correct thought and activity, a label used to discredit opposing views, an external source of ideas and action, an authority) is premised on the view that humans are separate from nature and act out of human-centeredness (Anthropocentrism) and this is what is destroying the earth. But I also showed that the apparent opposites of Biocentrism and Anthropocentrism both in fact mean the same thing. I said that this dichotomy was resolvable by breaking out of ideological forms of thought. This is what I mean.

I’d like to start with this assertion: Humans are not separate from nature. Our ‘nature’ is that which is most ‘natural’ to us — our deepest needs, desires, dreams, internally defined ideas (self-theory), our emotional wants and expression, our wild, animal instincts. Our human nature is our wild, free animal instinct and subjectivity. This is what is most natural and also what is most human about us since these qualities arise naturally and from within us. ‘Human’ and ‘nature’ are not contradictory, mutually exclusive terms.

Both Biocentrism (life/nature/earth-centred) and Anthropocentrism (human-centrism) mean the same thing, yet one is defined as being opposed to the other. They both are ideologies. They both are external, packaged thought for consumption and directed action. Both have adherents who purport that the ideology must be allowed to do the thinking for us, and that we must act out of motivations it prescribes. Ideological thinking requires that we relinquish our desires, our unpredictability, our ability to change and adapt and submit them to the category, label, doctrine, guru, Bible or, in the case of Biocentrism, to an abstracted Nature; an idea of nature.

When we relinquish our desires and wild animal instincts, we are relinquishing what is most natural, what is most human about us. Ideological thinking (false consciousness, since the thoughts and actions are not our own) is the enemy of nature. It is the enemy of humans because it deprives us of what makes us human — our human nature, our wildness. All authority — since it is ideological, externally imposed — is the enemy of nature and wildness. All domination and obedience kills nature in us, deprives us of our natures by depriving us of our humanity, our dreams, desires and wildness.

This is the mistake of claiming to act or think in the name of something external to us — whether it be Biocentrism, Marxism, Non-Violence, ‘The Cause’, America, Deep Ecology or an abstracted idea of Nature itself. These all kill our unruly, natural wild humanity. To say we are thinking or acting for Deep Ecology of the Earth or Nature or the Spotted Owl is to act for reasons external to us. To do this we must submit our desires to these ideological forms of thought, we must suppress our wildness, individuality — our nature. What a bizarre circumstance, to be risking injury or imprisonment to defend an idea of nature while killing the real living nature in ourselves! Of course, if you are doing/thinking those things for yourself and not killing wildness, not killing nature, not involved in ideological activity, them there is no reason to invoke labels as justifications. Be able to say: “I’m doing this out of my own desires for wildness, for my own human nature (or whatever).” And herein lies the way out of the contradiction.

Both Biocentrism and Anthropocentrism are ideologies and therefore anti-nature. If we act out of Biocentrism we are actually killing our nature, not being nature-centred. If we act out of Anthropocentrism, we are not acting out of our human-centred desires and wild animal instincts. We are acting out of ideological demands. So, Biocentrism is anti-nature and Anthropocentrism is anti-human! So they are both anti-human and anti-nature.

So, big deal? But this becomes critical when we see that it is this same mode of self-denial or self-repression of wildness that allows us to do anti-human activity and anti-nature activity in this society. Biocentrism (and all ideologies), therefore, reinforces this precondition, reinforces our domestication. The actual daily activity, the dominant mode of human existence on the earth today is mislabelled by the Biocentrists. It is not Anthropocentrism, not human-centred. It is not done to meet human needs, not done as a result of the fulfilment of wild human desires. This activity is done to fulfil the needs of power and capital, nation-states and commodity-exchange, the whole military-industrial-national-empire. It should rightly be called production-centred or power-centred or death-centred since we must kill our wild natures to be part of it. Our daily activity is done to keep this ‘Machine’ running. This Machine is what is devouring the earth, nature, wilderness and humanity. To work in the entrails of this ‘leviathan’ requires that we submit all our wildness to the needs, schedules and routines of it. On a daily basis, this is how we individually kill our desire for our nature, our wildness.

To do this, to suppress our own wild, human, animal instincts, we must put on successively think layers of emotional ‘armour’ to protect ourselves from the pain of a murdered nature trying to break through. Like asphalt and herbicide to keep the wild plants from destroying the roadbed, this armour must be constantly added to or it begins to fall away. This armour can also be thought of as the internalisation of the Machine, its logic and schedules. Eventually the armour can be mistaken for what it is suppressing in the same way that so many people today mistake concrete, machinery and media images for the real world. This is the success of the system, the goal of our education, the triumph of Domestication over Wilderness.

It is only such armoured beings, domesticated humans who have internalised the Machine, that would engage in self-destructive/nature-destructive activity. Herein lies the danger of all modes of ideological (pseudo) awareness and activity (of which Biocentrism is but one of many, many). By encouraging us to follow that which is external to us, that which negates our own human wildness and desires, these ways of thinking and acting, help build our emotional armour against nature! They encourage self-repression and domestication. Ideology causes us to further distrust our wild natural instincts to be free. In this way, we are more able to destroy the world while at the same time we are that much less able to transcend and break free from this very mode of destructive behaviour.

What is needed is a subjective, critical, internal-human-nature-centred type of ‘self-theory’ that helps us peel away the mystification surrounding our relation to ourselves, our world and our daily activity. We need to see domestication and suppression of wilderness and freedom clearly and without illusions before we can begin the wild, liberatory celebration of our nature, the creation of planetary wilderness and the pitiless annihilation of everything which stands in the way.

[adhdblues]

Sleep supplements that have actually worked really well for me

Before I start, the supplements I’m referring to are:

- Magnesium L-Threonate - Brand: Life Extension

- L-Theanine - Brand: now

- Apigenin - Brand: Liposomal

I’m sure there are other brands out there which are preferred, these are the ones that were accessible to me based on where I live.

——————

I just wanted to take some time to drop my personal experience/success here in case it can help anyone else who is struggling with sleep.

My whole life has been a struggle with sleep and insomnia. Both before and after I started adhd medication (concerta 54mg). I’ve been diagnosed with adhd about a year ago.

- It would take me at least 2 hours to fall asleep.

- I would wake up multiple times during the night.

- Had very vivid dreams, to the point I had to ask people if something happened in real life or if it was a dream. Mostly anxiety inducing dreams.

- I would be wide awake until sunrise.

My partner has helped me get into an evening routine since we met, which I really appreciated. But still, most of the nights I would experience insomnia, evening anxiety and mind-racing, bad dreams or interrupted sleep.

After listening to Andrew Huberman’s sleep podcast, we both tried to implement some of his tips into our night routine. But I still had sleep issues no matter what routine I tried. I.e restrict phone use prior to bed, dim all the lights to kickstart melatonin production etc.

He then decided to get me these 3 supplements that Huberman recommends for sleep because my overall mental health, sleep and anxiety levels were not great. We had both discussed it and thought it would be nice if I tried a different approach to see what happens.

I had mentioned my sleep struggles and evening anxiety to my psychiatrist multiple times, but his response would be that it’s normal because of adhd, as well as stimulant medication.

Since I started taking the supplements just under 2 months ago, they have honestly been working so well for me. I have considered that it may be placebo, but the outcome has been too good that it’s hard for me to ignore.

I don’t even know when I fall asleep anymore. I’m literally gone shortly after I get into bed — but I don’t feel drowsy prior to that. I have such deep sleep that I now wake up feeling fresh. I used to be a light sleeper, where I would wake up with any sound or movement in the room.

I even feel like it’s improved my brain fog a lot more than just concerta on its own (just a personal observation).

My constant vivid nightmares/dreams have gone away, I honestly can’t recall the last time I woke up to a bad dream. I don’t remember my dreams anymore, but I can’t tell you if i’m just not dreaming or if they’re just not as intense anymore���

No interrupted sleep since starting the supplements.

I have tried melatonin and over the counter sleep-aid, but I never really liked the side effects the morning after. Also melatonin never really helped my sleep quality.

I just wanted to mention it here in case it helps anyone else as well, because I’ve honestly been feeling soooo good and keep thanking my partner for getting me the supplements. I know I would’ve never done it myself out of procrastination.

However, these are just based on my personal experience and I’m not at all saying that everyone else will have the same experiences. I just want to give my review of some sorts, as someone who has adhd and has struggled with sleep, in case anyone has been curious about these or is looking to try something different, specifically for sleep.

I would recommend checking out Huberman’s podcasts on sleep, and adhd as well :)

I just wanted to add that I remember him mentioning that Apigenin could cause vivid dreams for some, but I personally haven’t experienced that until now.

Just make sure to drink enough water since they’re water soluble.

Other supplements that I take (in the morning) that may have some effect on this too:

- ashwagandha (short-term) - Brand: Jarrow Formulas —please do look into it and consult with a profession before trying this, since it can interact with underlying health conditions and medication. Recommended by all sources I have looked at to take it short term. I don’t take it for adhd purposes, I just decided to try it out because of stress and mood. There isn’t enough research to prove its benefits though, just a heads up.

- Algae Omega-3 - Brand: Garden of Life

- B-Complex - Brand: Nature’s Bounty

My day supplements are on and off as I forget to take them for a few days every now and then.

But I’ve tried to stay consistent with the sleep supplements in the last month and a half.

I hope this helps!

[lordelmelloi2]

kiara

Sexuality Headcanon: Omnisexual. Its Kiara. She could fuck a computer fully

Gender Headcanon: Oh my god, its Kiara. Shes over there eating mermaid flesh. "THIS IS WHAT GOOD PUSSY SOUNDS LIKE *GEIGER COUNTER GOING CRAZY*", literally indescribable

A ship I have with said character: HansKiara, KamaKiara. KiaraRose is the bad end

A BROTP I have with said character: I don't think Kiara is capable of being "bros" with somebody. I do not believe she has it in her to do "bro" things.

A NOTP I have with said character: Hmmm. A lot of pairings with Kiara I think would be ill-fated, because I think Kiara is actually quite delicate and people would mishandle her, or try to get with her solely for sex reasons, and she's much more ladylike than that and secretly desires to be treated more humanely even if she is the way she is. To be honest I'm not fond of many GudaKiara things in any regards. I'm also pretty tired of the "putting Kiara and King Hassan in the same room and seeing what happens" sex jokes to be honest, I think King Hassan has the sight to see that Kiara is much more pathetic than she leads on but Kiara would become like a hissing kitten in his presence rather than joking about fucking him.

A random headcanon: Kiara can make games. Kiara is secretly the backbone of the gaming club in Chaldea because no one realizes that a decent amount of indie productions in Chaldea are through her computer. Kiara's the backbone of a lot of the hardware and software engineering parts of Chaldea (LOL hard and soft ware JOAKE) simply because people asked nicely and she said yes and was watched very closely to make sure she wasn't installing anything she could take advantage of. Because of her capabilities she's always getting approached for programming help all the time to the point where she openly sighs in exhaustion whenever someone comes to her with a problem. It's very funny to see her run ragged for once despite being a super wizard class A hacker

General Opinion over said character: I love Kiara, I think she has a lot of depth and nuance and she's not as evil as people think. I think people enjoy using her as a scapegoat because her character does feature a lot of sexuality, she's the original Beast-Whore where her sexuality is a feature of the evilness she's meant to represent. But I think she's a lot more detailed than just being evil and wanting to have sex. Because there's her background which reveals she's been basically traumatized and fucked up her entire life, and you can tell in the way she acts that she wants to try to reclaim some of the innocence she was denied in her childhood, although her method of approaching it is twisted because, again, she's been screwed over her entire life. But I also think there's more to her than even just those things, I think her capabilities as a hacker should be explored in a legitimate sense, I think her competencies deserve examination. In the Fate/Extra SERAPH manga the ideal, flawless society she created literally was a society in which there was no discrimination for the way people where, and on top of that, it was first in the medical field and had cured several diseases and had pioneered research in medical techniques and even for therapy techniques so people could live and survive. And it was all presented as legitimate. Maybe I have the wool pulled over my eyes, but I think it's intriguing that a woman who was bedridden and abused her entire life, when finally using her power as a savior and a leader decides to create a society where people will no longer have to suffer under their diseases or traumas and are given the tools and resources to make it happen......

[akountify-scam]

Akountify Scam Warning!

Scam Alert: Akountify Domains (.com, .net, .ai), ObeliskVentures, and Overlead Credit Card Charges — What You Must Know! If you're searching for terms like "Akountify scam", "Obeliskventures scam", or "Overlead credit card charge fraud" — this report will expose the truth behind these connected operations.

Here are several public sources that support my claims. I urge you to review them and see the truth for yourself: https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/11/23/shady_scam_mogul_press/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sales/comments/1i6m67o/comment/mk8alyo/ https://www.trustpilot.com/review/akountify.net?stars=1 https://ie.trustpilot.com/review/akountify.net?stars=1 https://akountify.tenereteam.com/

🔍 The Scam Network Explained What looks like a professional tech ecosystem is actually a sophisticated international scam operating in the gray area of online commerce. Here's how they present themselves: Obelisk Ventures (obeliskventures.com) – Portrays itself as a legitimate tech venture or SaaS partner. Overlead – Marketed as a sales engagement platform. In reality, it’s the name that appears on credit card charges from Akountify purchases. Akountify – Offers LinkedIn outreach solutions for outbound teams under multiple domains: Akountify.com, Akountify.net, and Akountify.ai. Despite the slick branding and polished websites, victims report a shared experience: they never receive what they paid for, are misled by support, and are eventually ghosted or insulted.

🧾 Overlead on Your Bank Statement? It’s Part of the Scam Customers who make purchases through Akountify are surprised to find Overlead listed as the merchant on their card statement. This clever tactic makes it difficult to trace the charge or file a dispute. Contact information associated with these charges includes: 💳 Charge description: OVERLEAD This tactic adds confusion and weakens your position in filing chargebacks. Overlead is not a platform you signed up for—but it’s how the scam hides.

🌐 Akountify.com, Akountify.net, Akountify.ai – Many Domains, One Scam Akountify uses multiple domain names to create a web of confusion and maintain the appearance of a scalable SaaS solution. Victims report: Being guided into Slack for fake onboarding Facing delays, scripted excuses, or hostile responses Receiving no service or product after payment Refunds blocked or ignored This cross-domain strategy makes it harder to track complaints across platforms, helping them avoid detection.

💬 Trustpilot Reviews Are Manipulated – Here’s the Reality Akountify and its affiliates maintain an artificially positive reputation by stuffing Trustpilot and other review platforms with fake 5-star ratings. Don’t be fooled by the top scores! They will often attempt to counter complaints from victims by accusing them of using fake identities or violating terms—ironically, this comes from the very people selling fake accounts. Yes, the same operation scamming people with fake LinkedIn accounts is also blaming victims for using them. Just look at their Trustpilot page: they intentionally flood it with glowing reviews. But if you filter by 1-star reviews, you’ll see the truth — dozens of victims sharing detailed stories of how they were deceived. Search these terms: Akountify scam Obelisk Ventures scam Overlead credit card charge scam Akountify review You’ll find real user reports, refund issues, and scam alerts.

🌍 Obelisk Ventures & Co. – Fraud Operation Possibly Based in Spain Evidence points to this scheme operating out of Spain, using real merchant processors, branded interfaces, and legal-sounding paperwork to mask fraud. Victims describe: Professional-looking invoices Branded Slack channels False promises of LinkedIn accounts or outreach services All of which appear legitimate, until the service stops—or never begins.

🚫 Final Warning: Avoid Obelisk Ventures, Overlead, and Any Akountify Domain If you see any of these names: Obelisk Ventures (obeliskventures.com) Overlead (on your credit card) Akountify.com, Akountify.net, Akountify.ai or similar …take it as a red flag. You are likely engaging with a well-disguised scam operation.

You might think $85 isn’t a large amount, but if they scam just 10 people a day, that’s $850 daily — and this has reportedly been happening since 2023. The scale and consistency of this operation are alarming. They’re highly strategic in covering their tracks. Akountify uses bots and a coordinated team to counter anyone who speaks out. They flood platforms like Trustpilot, Google Maps, and other review sites with fake positive reviews, written by their own people, to bury the truth and silence real victims. These people are calculated and skilled at what they do, which is why many victims remain silent. One Reddit https://www.reddit.com/user/Stunning-Coast2522/ user even mentioned being threatened by them. If you take a closer look, you’ll find a pattern linking Akountify, Obelisk Ventures, and Overlead.io. These operations appear to be run by the same individual.

📢 Protect others by sharing your experience. Post reviews, submit complaints, and help others avoid becoming victims!

[ehriscvan]

I didn’t know where else to vent because I’ve been feeling incredibly isolated in my feelings about the RPC. What I’ve noticed is how there is an influx of creators fetishizing MLM to a degree that goes beyond the importance of representation. I don’t think it would be such a glaring issue if the RPC treated all queer people and relationships the same because the same energy is not paid to WLW or nonbinary relationships.

There is irrefutable evidence, regardless of how much people will post about respecting female muses and will still continue to leave women of colour and trans women out of the conversations. We do absolutely need more queer representation. We need more trans muses, non binary muses, bisexual, pansexual, homosexual, lesbian and aroace muses. However, the RPC in certain fandoms ( marvel, DC or those many ABC dramas for instance ) still prioritize and centre MLM ships that have no canonical text or subtext and I’m not actually sure people understand what healthy dynamics between men look like.

Which further perpetuates the societal divide and toxicity of the kind of masculinity that is dangerous. Men in fandoms can’t hug without it being gay, men can’t support one another or express their emotions and appreciate without it being some buried longing. This is the cycle of violence in the real world within the patriarchy and there are real consequences in the real world. Reasons why violence towards the LGBTQ+ continues.

I think at its base level, there are a lot of female aligning muns ( and this is not subject to just those who identify because as a trans man, I had to do so much work ) who have not done the internal work to review their own biases and internalized misogyny and are placing white cis men on a pedestal and erasing everyone else. I say this as a trans person of colour, that it’s disheartening to see this constant motion and dismissal towards anyone who voices their opinion or upset. I am by no means suggesting that people don’t ship what they want because that would be counter productive. But what’s happening is pure fetish without insight or understanding towards the real life struggles of gay men and other LGBTQ+ people in the world.

People are hiding behind the shield of wokeness while actively writing with zionist face claims, fetishizing MLM and putting mediocre cis white men above everyone and everything else. It’s very exhausting, it feels like I couldn’t possibly say anything else towards this without being called homophobic as a queer trans person myself. I think too much has been placed on smaller issues that we’ve forgotten how much queer stories and the stories or people of colour deserve a spot in the RPC that is safe and for the right reasons. Not to be fetishized, not to be a scapegoat for people’s internalized misogyny or complacency to the patriarchy. I’m very sorry for broaching this subject and taking up your time but I appreciate the space.

hi! just wanted to gently chime in. i think you bring up some really important points — especially about how often woc, trans women, and broader queer identities are excluded from conversations and representation. that gap is real, and it's disheartening when people say they care about diversity but don’t reflect it in their character choices or plots.

that said, i also think it’s worth recognizing that people often gravitate toward mlm ships (even the non-canon ones) because they’re reading queerness into media that doesn’t give us a lot to work with in the first place. sometimes it’s the only way folks feel seen — and while that doesn’t mean we should ignore imbalance, it helps to frame it as a broader fandom trend rather than blaming individuals. it’s not always that people don’t understand healthy male dynamics; sometimes it’s that they’re exploring something they didn’t get to see growing up.

i really do agree with the heart of your message though: we absolutely need more nuanced, intentional representation. not just queer-coded men, but also trans muses, nb muses, women of color, and queer women of all kinds. it’s possible to critique the trends and recognize where people are coming from. both things can be true. sending love — bubbles

[336863]

I was around in this space up till April this year post my Korea trip but have since been completely absent. It's been a year where we've really busied ourselves with personal things/projects. But I still could've made a grander effort in trying to be back at this space. 30 mins a week is not a lot and I ought to really dedicate and commit myself to it. I will 100% make a conscious effort this time around in 2025 -- as I get older, I feel its more important to chronicalise some of my thoughts before they get swept into the recesses of my mind and then into oblivion. No more procrastinating and not commiting to this, I've said the same things here too many times

A lot has happened this year! I got engaged in Jul and we started really planning for our wedding in Oct and now we have a date set up for Nov 2025. C really is the girl of my dreams and I want to be the best partner for her, even if that means having to compromise for more than my fair share. Afterall I think she wants to be babied and spoilt more than she likes to admit. I should also do better in connecting with her emotionally especially since she's voiced out several times that it's of great importance to her. A relationship is all about putting in the effort and she is the one person that I'd want to do that for

Also another partial reason why I didn't spend as much time on this platform.. I guess its also due to me spending more time on video games. I'm still a bit mixed on this part -- it is very enjoyable for me and does provide me with some reprieve from work / some sort of stress reliever but I'm not sure if it's affecting my productivity and social life. At this point I feel like the answer is no but if it starts coming in the way of things I want to spend more time on then I'm sure I'll need to make a change to drastically cut down

My conversation with my hairdresser was really interesting when it came to new year's resolutions -- she says she tries to have a theme for the year and then have her goals/aims sort of revolve around it, which I felt was a refreshing way to think about it. At the point of writing this paragraph I didn't have an inkling what my theme could be but just going through it quickly in my head, I started quickly leaning in the direction of "counter intuitive" -- be it point of view, or understanding or assumption or approach or decision-making. I want to use 2025 to always consider the counter-intuitive side of things because I feel like forcing myself to take a different point of view will help develop me most holistically, especially on my weaknesses, of which the greatest I would say is empathy (or lack of). Yes, my approach in life and relationships so far has served me well but I could very well have lucked into it, and perhaps there is a natural ceiling to where it could take me. In 2025, I want to look at everything with brand new eyes, be less judgemental, consider differing/opposite viewpoints, have more genuine flexibility, avoid quick dismissals, learn everyone's perspective and re-educate myself in all things. This theme feels broad enough to emcompass all my resolutions below but also specific enough to guide me in my actions. No doubt that it will take quite a bit out of me mentally but maybe a refreshing new approach will be good for my personal growth as well as improve some of my closest relationships. I will commit to logging my progress over here

Once again, I think my resolutions for the next year stays roughly identical, but with more details/updates (similar like for last year). Here are my 2025 resolution and here's to me and a well lived 2024

Quality time with mum and family. Not just holidays but doing more frequent meals at nicer restaurants is something I could do. Also just casual outings could be fun and refreshing for her

Improve closest relationships and be kinder to all, More empathy and kindness to C and Z especially

Commit to reading more. Finance-related, self-improvement, biographies etc, fucking everything. This is something I need to develop desperately and I could definitely use some inspiration

Write/introspect much more. 30 mins a week to revisit this space and pen down my thoughts, no matter how brief. And also to track the 2025 theme I've committed to

Devote more time to hobbies and developing new interests. I need to shoot more film, it brings me so much joy. I’ll make it a point to bring my point-and-shoot all the time. I guess video games comes under this category and I've done well in this regard

Manage work/life balance better. Work and personal matters both take up lots of headspace. Individually/separately I can do better, but together they need to get along more harmiously in my head. Work -- I need to constantly obsess with P&L and outcomes and where I can improve

Take better care of myself. This goes both physically and mentally. Be more disciplined -- reduce the frequencies of vices and increase frequencies of workouts. Probably challenging to go cold turkey all of a sudden, but I can surely do better here

Dress better / consume more mindfully. Had noticed that the casual work environment has caused me to slack off in how I dress especially with current trends leaning in that direction. I want to be more thoughtful with my clothes and develop my style more. Also want to be a more concsious consumer, buying better quality at reduced frequencies