#with objective truth

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

probably will be FORCED by Pomp And Circumstance to go to the CLOWN HOSPITAL, for a CLOWN INJURY (may or may not be An ALLEGEDLY Fractured Foot...a MOURNFUL MALADY incurred in the most PATHETIC and LAPSIDAISICAL Fashion of TRAGICALLY UNFASHIONABLY Events......

Anyway. Forgot what I was saying. Buy me 1/25th of an x-ray or whatnot I guess

[calp0sa]

topaz

[bixels]

As cameras becomes more normalized (Sarah Bernhardt encouraging it, grifters on the rise, young artists using it), I wanna express how I will never turn to it because it fundamentally bores me to my core. There is no reason for me to want to use cameras because I will never want to give up my autonomy in creating art. I never want to become reliant on an inhuman object for expression, least of all if that object is created and controlled by manufacturing companies. I paint not because I want a painting but because I love the process of painting. So even in a future where everyone’s accepted it, I’m never gonna sway on this.

if i have to explain to you that using a camera to take a picture is not the same as using generative ai to generate an image then you are a fucking moron.

[brucie-baby]

superbat makes me so insane because i know for a fact that if one of them was a woman it would've been canon, retconned and canon again several times over already

[sunkissedliterarylightofchrist]

While we're on the topic, depiction does not automatically equal glorifying or agreeing with that thing. So if you have a problem with a piece of media just because it has elements that show we live in a fallen world, that is incredibly unrealistic- and then you can't even appreciate 'good Christian' media. Christian literary giants still have those sinful elements in their work just as much if not more than secular ones do. Because you have to show the darkness for the light to pierce it.

The difference between depicting something and glorifying it is how the author uses different tools to depict what they're showing and saying and what message they're getting across with their work. So even if you're just looking at something to chill out on your down time, and don't want to or don't have the mental capacity to analyze it, at least think about what it is saying and why and how it all works together to tell the story and how the worse aspects of it contribute to the central themes.

AND EVEN THEN if a work DOES glorify something sinful because that's what the author believes in and wants to promote, that isn't an automatic no to you consuming that media either. That is up to you to use your wisdom and discernment to see if you can enjoy that media while ignoring or not supporting those particular aspects of the media or if you should blacklist it completely because its so sinful and by consuming it you are convicted that you are sinning, or that it might lead you to sin if you struggle with that thing.

There is more nuance than you think there is in everything. Be wise about it.

[shkika]

As a new Ultrakill fan, i just discovered about w1 and i'm obsessed with the lil guy! I wanna hold them in my hands like a bug :3

nobody can be as obsessed with W1 as itself hehehe

thank you so much!!

[francesderwent]

the objectivity of truth does not give you license to be cold and unfeeling

[lgbtlunaverse]

Mdzs fandom: I've got an ironclad objective and unambiguous account of this event as it happened in canon.

Me: Is it actually unambiguous?

Fandom: I don't understand

Me: I want to know if you have an ironclad unambiguous objective account of an event, or an in-universe subjective interpretation where the truth is intentionally left up to speculation?

Fandom: I have the objective account

Me: you're sure? It's fine if you have a subjective interpretation.

Fandom: I have an objective unambiguous account. I do not have a subjective interpretation

Me: Alright! Please give me the objective account.

Fandom: Here you go. *hands me an in-universe subjective interpretation of something where the truth is intentionally left up to speculation*

[treatsformeeko]

This dialogue has always baffled me. It is locked behind a 30 cunning check, which I think may be impossible to reach without cheats at this early stage in the game (?) but its implications are INSANE. Entirely too long tirade below the cut:

How could the darkspawn possibly know the plan? Does it have anything to do with darkspawn showing greater signs of intelligence (re: the Architect, the Messenger)? Awakening was being written before DAO came out — was this meant to tie into that?

Many people online have discussed that it may be a remnant of abandoned plot threads that paint loghain as more of a mustache-twirling villain, working with the darkspawn (either willingly or perhaps under their influence?) to make sure the signal fire doesn’t get lit. David Gaider explained at length that the Ostagar plotline and the Cailan/Loghain conflict were subject to numerous rewrites. And while it is true that there is no further dialogue to suggest that Loghain was working with the darkspawn as this dialogue implies, my next question is what were his men doing in the tunnels underneath the Tower of Ishal?

Even before I had seen this exact line, in my first playthrough I operated under the assumption that Loghain had purposefully sabotaged the Tower in order to place blame on the Grey Wardens (an already easy scapegoat given their very recent return from exile) once he inevitably quit the field. I never once thought that his decision to retreat from Ostagar was made in the heat of the moment — after all, why would Howe already be making moves on Highever if he thought that Cailan would be alive after the battle to punish him for it? And if it were the case that Loghain planned for Cailan to die at Ostagar, why would he allow the signal fire to be lit on time and still quit the field knowing that some of his men would see this as betraying the King, regardless of how good he was at being a leader? Was it just a very happy accident that the darkspawn overwhelming the Tower and delaying made him look less villainous to his own army? Why would he leave this up to chance when so much of his plan before this seems to be so carefully crafted?

Frankly speaking, much of the deeper DAO lore seems to be happy accidents — constant rewrites and abandoned plot threads coming together to create a genuinely interesting story where the truth is not easily identified. And honestly, I think it benefited greatly from this! The truth is messy, especially when there are this many players vying for power in some way or another.

Personally, I’m of the mind that dev-lore comes secondary to what actually makes it into the game, even when the devs had better ideas than what we got. Which is why it is so fascinating that this line still exists in game and yet is nearly impossible to obtain! Why does it still exist? Why is it so hard to obtain? What implications does it have on the greater plot?

I don’t necessarily have an interesting conclusion beyond the fact that I am still in awe at the reactivity of this game that is objectively pretty clunky and ugly by today’s standards. I love Loghain as a villain in part because he is so human, and as much as I enjoy the sequels I really think that he is one of the best antagonists of the entire series. I find it really interesting that his reputation is not entirely shredded to pieces by Inquisition, as some Ostagar vets still sing his praises, which just further drives home the point that he has the capacity for good AND evil! I mean hell, the whole game is about making sacrifices for the greater good. Couldn’t you still argue that that was what Loghain was doing (or at least thought he was doing)?

All of this being an entirely too-long wind up to say: fuck you Quartermaster Threnn. I know what I saw.

[tvlandofficiall]

revisiting ch1 for the anniversary and one thing that's always stuck out to me is the couple of times darkness is associated with being able to "see the way". i don't know if it means anything or if it's just me reading a bit too much into some flavor text but if it does mean anything i definitely think it has something to do with how, like how venturing further into the darkness reveals the truth of what's hidden there (the switch in the ringaround puzzle room or the path to a key, for example), entering the dark worlds themselves reveals the hidden truth of the objects of the light world to us and the lightners — that they're not just ordinary objects, but living beings. the darker it gets, the more the whole of these worlds and how they are connected is revealed to us.

[wardensantoineandevka]

Imogen: So, how do you know that Predathos won't hurt the rest of us? Like, where is this information coming from? Is that what Predathos told you? Did you talk to Predathos and that's what it told you?

Ludinus: I did talk to Predathos, and it said that it won't eat us.

Imogen:

[snixx]

if hearing a girl criticize consumerism and beauty/makeup/anti-body hair culture or even just saying they don't like wearing makeup or shaving or performing femininity immediately makes you label them a pick-me maybe that's your own conscience or internalised guilt projecting just sayin'. maybe she isn't the one who thinks you're anti-feminist for wearing makeup (let's face it she most probably doesn't because most people fucking wear makeup) but your visceral defensiveness at someone just existing outside conventional beauty standards says more about you than it probably does about them

[dayurno]

the first thing you have to understand about kevin day is that he’s incredibly straightforward and always means exactly what he says. the second thing you have to understand is that his favorite social media is linkedin. the third and most important thing is that she would be happier as a woman

[scopophilic1997]

scopOphilic_micromessaging_1267 - scopOphilic1997 presents a new micro-messaging series: small, subtle, and often unintentional messages we send and receive verbally and non-verbally. (2011)

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

genuinely I think one of the most pressing calls for Christians (namely Protestant Christians) today is to stop underestimating the power of beauty

visual beauty, beauty in word, beauty in sound, beauty in story

we have ceded beauty for the past 70 years to the atheistic world and people of all beliefs are realizing that world has failed to carry that standard. people are realizing their daily lives are starved of beauty--especially natural beauty--so they are turning to the entities which recognize its power. entities like paganism, witchcraft, ancestor worship, the New Age. if they are drawn to Christianity (not necessarily believing it), they are more likely to attend a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox mass.

humans need beauty because humans need God, and beauty belongs to God. which means the church should be the standard-bearer of beauty in this world.

if a church can afford it, they should prioritize building a beautiful church, even if that means it will be smaller or less trendy.

if a church has skilled musicians in their midst, they should prioritize using those musicians in worship, even if it means the style of the music changes.

the church should always prioritize hymns and spiritual songs which exemplify goodness, truth, and beauty in their composition and lyrics, even if it means newcomers don't understand every line yet.

all these forms of beauty should reflect the beauty of the story of the Gospel.

[gin-juice-tonic]

The best poptarts to eat warm are unfrosted brown sugar cinnamon

Best poptarts to eat cold are frosted blueberry