#written only as a correction/update to my original response | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

hxrpooner · 1 year ago

Text

(i wrote a response to this post a while ago, i don’t remember how long, but i didn’t like what i wrote anymore so i deleted it. but also i really like overthinking things and writing a lot of words about it so i’m rewriting my addition for funsies. i’m assuming op has notifs on this post turned off by now but if not... sorry lol)

The basic premise of “Undertale Prime” as a hypothetical game off of which Undertale is based is... fine. It’s sort of just a (needlessly convoluted?) way of saying that Undertale subverts the character archetypes typically seen in the RPG genre. The problem is mostly with what OP presumes to be the purpose of this subversion.

I find it hard just from this post to gauge exactly how the author feels about the game, but I am left with two possible conclusions:

1) The game/its characters are bad. Undertale is “nonsensical” at best and “morally repugnant” at worst. The writing takes a fanfiction-like approach and fails at maintaining moral and logical consistency.

I think use of words such as “morally repugnant” and “plotholes” is sort of... over-serious. Is every shounen anime or children’s cartoon that uses talk-no-jutsu “morally repugnant”?

Undertale is silly. It’s a silly game. It has more serious moments and themes, and it does provide an interesting deconstruction of the RPG genre. But it is also a very lighthearted and funny game for the most part. It could almost be called a genre parody. The juxtaposition of the characters’ zany personalities with their attempts to murder you is... kind of part of the joke? (Like it’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek.I don’t feel like the game needs to spell it out for you explicitly for that to be clear). Mostly I feel like this interpretation is demanding a real-world level of coherence and logic that is unreasonable to expect from a silly fantasy RPG that parodizes many aspects of its genre. It feels pedantic (said the pot to the kettle, har har)

2) The incongruence is done on purpose, as part of some meta-commentary about fandom. Undertale is aware of its internal inconsistencies and its characters are intentionally written this way in order to critique fandomization.

The tone the OP takes towards fan characterizations feels quite derisive. I can’t help but feel that this interpretation is influenced by a negative view of fandoms. There are interesting conversations to be had about media literacy and the way fandoms engage with media, but this take feels unnecessarily reductive. In any case, Undertale is very earnest in the way it presents itself, and I can’t picture it as some sort of snide criticism of fans and fandoms. The way characters are written may reference fans and fanon, but I don’t think the writing gives any reason to believe that it’s a negative thing.

Conclusions aside, I think the reasoning is fundamentally flawed. OP refers to the boss monsters as “villains”; they are bad people. Killing them is a morally acceptable way to “hold them responsible” for their actions. This is an oversimplification that Undertale actively resists. The characters of Undertale do bad things, but that does not make them bad people, or unworthy of saving. Even if it did, it still wouldn’t justify keeping the entire -- largely nonviolent -- monster race imprisoned underground. Sometimes in order to help the people who are good you have to help the people who suck; you don’t get to pick and choose who lives and dies. That’s like the whole fucking point!!! That they’re “monsters”, but not in the way that is typically meant when said in an RPG!!! That you can’t play god with people’s lives and expect the best possible outcome!!! UGH

(Also... you absolutely CAN kill the monsters that attack you. The game doesn’t punish you for a Neutral route. Some of the characters might end up hating you, or having different things happen to them depending on your actions... although if you don’t like them I don’t know why you’d care what they think or what happens to them anyway. Frisk escapes the underground, and all’s well that ends well for them. A Pacifist ending is “better” in the sense that you get more of the story, the complete credits, and the monsters are freed. But again this is only really “better” if you actually LIKE the monsters. There’s little material benefit to the player or to Frisk; it’s also more mechanically difficult than a Neutral run. And yeah, the game punishes you for a Genocide route. But that’s because you have to go out of your way to kill all of the monsters in the game, which is immoral, pretty inarguably).

TL;DR: This analysis misses the point of Undertale’s narrative by over-rationalizing, and possibly projecting the author’s own attitudes about fandom onto Toby Fox.

Also, the line about how “the most sympathetic/admirable women become lesbians” is... weird! Just a fucking weird thing to say.

A Remake Without an Original

Hold on tight, folks. We’re going full post-structuralist.

So. I’ve been thinking about the discussions that @nostalgebraist and @cyborgbutterflies have been having about Undertale fairly recently.

And I think I’ve hit upon a Doylist explanation for why Undertale is so morally bizarre:

All the characters in Undertale have no canonical existence, they have all been preemptively rewritten as the characters that fandom would have turned them into.

Undertale as it exists now, is like the fanon version of a game that never existed.

Let’s call this hypothetical game-that-never-was “Undertale Prime”.

In Undertale Prime, Papyrus is pretty much an exact duplicate of Skeletor: an evil mastermind whose plans never come to fruition. Constantly frustrated, taking out his anger on his minions in the most hilariously melodramatic ways.

In Undertale Prime, Undyne is a deadly serious super-soldier. Even a bit of a sadist. She is acquainted with Alphys, but there’s no romance between them.

In Undertale Prime, Mettaton has no Mettaton EX form. He remains a rectangular robot for the entire game, but his personality shows small signs of the sass and flamboyance of Mettaton EX.

In Undertale Prime, Alphys is a tetchy mad scientist, more like Cumberbatch’s Sherlock than anything else. Prickly on the surface, lonely underneath. There’s no mention of anime or internet arguments or anything like that.

In Undertale Prime, Asgore is stern and serious, and completely in charge, but tormented by the necessary evils he has committed to protect his kingdom. Like a more sympathetic version of a king from a Shakespearean tragedy.

And finally, in Undertale Prime, all bosses are killed without remorse or punishment.

We’ve seen these character archetypes before, and we can guess how a typical fandom would reinterpret these archetypes:

the Thwarted Mastermind becomes a Bumbling Narcissist.

the Deadly Soldier becomes a Hot-Blooded Blockhead.

the Mad Scientist becomes an Adorable Nerd.

The Geometric Robot becomes a Svelte Bishonen.(look at Bill Cipher fanart)

The Tormented King becomes Sad Dad.

(and the most sympathetic/admirable women become lesbians)

But most importantly, all these villains would become sympathetic.

They’d become comedy relief, or even woobies.

Undertale takes the most probable fanon reinterpretations of Undertale Prime, and makes them canon. Why are the villains actions treated so cavalierly? Because typical fandom wouldn’t care. Typical fandom forgives villains, typical fandom makes villains cute.

But the discrepancy is this: in Undertale, the characters’ actions all remain the same as they would be in the dark and serious story of Undertale Prime. They play the same role in the plot, they are still Villains. The only things that change are their personalities, and the manner in which they are presented to the audience.

The result is that Undertale Prime makes moral sense, but Undertale does not.

It’s as if the Avengers canonically considered Bucky Barnes a family friend and acted as if the events of The Winter Soldier had never happened, as fandom wishes it were– But Bucky was still a terrorist.

It’s as if the characters in Borderlands 2 saw Handsome Jack as charming comic relief, the way the audience does– but Handsome Jack was still a murderous psychopath.

It’s as if, in Kingdom Hearts 2, Organization XIII were portrayed as the bickering sitcom family that the KH fandom made them into– but they were still trying to kill Sora and friends.

Every playthrough of the Kingdom Hearts franchise involves killing every member of Organization XIII.

But I guarantee you every Kingdom Hearts fan has their favorite Organization member.

None of the characters in Undertale are “held responsible” for attacking Frisk, because a game audience typically does not hold boss characters responsible for attacking the player. Instead, the audience sees them, through a Doylist/Mechanics-oriented lens, as a welcome addition to the game: a challenging battle and an entertaining character.

Undertale takes the player’s expected affectionate attitude towards bosses, and makes it the “objectively morally right” choice, according to the game’s in-world metaphysics.

Undertale is not just a game that preaches pathological altruism, it is, in itself, a pathologically altruistic text– a text that privileges the interpretation it expects to be subjected to over its own internal structure and logic, and preemptively changes itself to make those expected interpretations into objective truth, even when those changes create plotholes and morally repugnant implications.

A game, suffering to make itself everything the world expects it to be, about a child who suffers to make itself everything the world expects it to be.

#written only as a correction/update to my original response #i could have just edited my original rb but i didn't think about it until after i deleted it #something something hope and kindness in the face of terrible adversity #undertale #long post

2K notes · View notes

jothemouse · 1 year ago

Text

COMMISSIONS ARE CLOSED!!

EDIT/UPDATE:

Commissions will be closed until August! Thank you so much to everyone who's commissioned me or shown interest in these! It means the world to me!! And I hope that you'll all stick around to see the results of these commissions!! (Which does include the sticker plan!)

To all current commissioners and waitlisted folks: don't worry, your pieces are still in progress and to those on the waitlist I will be in contact! Thank you all for your patronage and patience! You are all so amazing!!!

If you would like a commission but missed out on these, please be sure to check back in August!

Thank you all again so much!! I hope you have a wonderful week you guys!! <333

SO, as you may know, some of you may know, maybe none of you know, I am trying to start selling stickers!!! On my own. No RedBubble or Society6. Nope. All by my lonesome!

But in order to do that, I need to make the money to purchase the stickers and other necessary shipping supplies in the first place. So, I'm opening commissions!! Specifically,,,,,,

I am doing sketch commissions!

I don't have a set close date OR any slots, so it is completely first come, first serve for as long as I can keep it up!

I'm going to include more information, process, as well as terms and conditions under the cut, but if you have any questions not answered below please don't hesitate to get in touch with me here, on Instagram (@jo.the.mouse) or by email ([email protected])!

And before I continue on, if you cant commission me but want to support me all I ask is that you please reblog this post!! It does a WORLD of wonders to spread posts around! Thank you!!

What I'm Offering

Commissioned artworks in my “Sketch Style”. The money made from these commissions is going to directly fund the creation and sale of illustrated stickers!

Here is a fun little preview sketch of what will be the Canada sticker that I've been obnoxiously polling people about:

Prices

Uncolored Sketch:

$15

Includes: one character, no/minimal shading, and simple/abstract background

Flat Color Sketch:

$25

Includes: one character, no/minimal shading, and simple/abstract background

Full Color Sketch:

$35

Includes: one character, basic shading, and simple/abstract background

Add Additional Characters:

+ $5 per added character

What I will draw:

OCs (original characters)

Fanart

Real People

Furries (Anthro and Feral)

Fantasy/DnD

Suggestive (no real people without written and signed consent)

What I will NOT draw:

Overtly NSFW

Heavy Gore

Process

Contact me either through DMs (Tumblr: jothemouse, Instagram: jo.the.mouse) or through email ([email protected])

We'll talk a bit about your commission (like what you're looking for, any references I'll need, how much it'll cost,.ect.) I'll also be asking for your email and preferred payment method at this time.

Payment for the commission is due upon receiving a confirmation email. This email will include a google form contract (this is mainly for me to make sure I have everything correct), notice that I've sent you a payment request, and a time estimate!

I will begin the initial sketch once payment is received.

Refunds are available at any point before you receive the initial sketch.

Upon receiving the initial sketch you can suggest changes and revisions. This is your only opportunity to do so.

From there I will finalize your commission to agreed upon level.

I will let you know when your commission is finished and send you an email containing a PDF and PNG file!

Terms and Conditions

PAYMENT is due upon receiving email with confirmation and a time estimate. Depending on discussed payment method, you will receive either A; a PayPal invoice, or B; a Venmo payment request. Work will begin once payment is received.

REFUNDS are available at any time BEFORE you receive the “initial sketch” OR if commission cannot be delivered within agreed upon time or at all.

Time estimate is not a hard deadline and response times may affect how long a commission will take.

This commission is for PERSONAL USE ONLY. You may not use the commission for any commercial purposes, claim it as your own, or use it in conjunction with any AI methods.

I reserve the right to refuse any commission that I believe falls outside of my comfort level or skill level.

Additionally, I will only be drawing in the specific style demonstrated in the example works.

ALRIGHT! You made it through all that nonsense!

Thank you so much for reading! And if you're able, please consider commissioning me!

I hope to see you in my DMs!! (^-^)

90 notes · View notes

thewebcomicsreview · 11 days ago

Text

What? Homestuck updated? I get that 11-11 is an arc number (even if it's by far the least important one), but I thought we were on hiatus to work on the big [S] page?

Anyway, Tavvy left a message. That's some fancy handwriting. It's also quite possibly the first written message in the history of Homestuck that's 100% grammatically correct normal English, with Tavvy dropping his comma quirk entirely. Also everyone involved here has cell phones and Tavvy is writing them a letter by hand. He's also leaving snacks for the other kids and telling them to eat the raisins.

It's very parental. Bit interesting that Tavvy, who has had the worst upbringing in a comic about abused children, is the best dad. Tavvy in general is a bit of an enigma, all we really know about him is that he has latent anger issues, presents as a total geed, and is apparently a Man Of Action in disguise.

Jade I have detected a flaw in your incredible shield plan.

VRISSY: FINE, stay 8ack there and sit on your ass. VRISSY: What Do I care if you spend the rest of your life 8eing 8oring and sad, just like your Shitty Parents! HARRY: h-hey... my mom and dad aren't shitty... VRISSY: Harry Wake Up alre8dy! They're NOTHING!!!!!!!! Can you at least Act annoyed a8out that????????

Speaking of unique parental situations, is Harry the only character in Homestuck that actually likes his parents?

Aw man, this art is cool. This could be a poster!

Jade I have detected a flaw in your incredible shield plan.

So, uh, Yiffy running away distracted Jade, causing her to drop her shield and get shot, huh? Yiffy is indirectly responsible for her mother's death. Also, what the fuck? I liked Candy Jade! But I guess if the Omega Kids are to be the new protagonists, their all-powerful parents have to be cleared out.

RIP John, by the way. The great HS1 cast pruning has begun.

End of Act 1. Dirk-Orange curtains for Beyond Canon. Well. Short update, but I guess it sets up-

(I actually did miss that there was a next page link for a bit)

gavageCunctation [GC] began negging adamantGriftress [AG] 801 MINUTES AGO.

Hey hey, it's gavageCunctation! Last seen on Vrissy's phone in the jail, where Vrissy was able to talk to her (despite no internet) but didn't want to. 801 minutes ago is the HSBC arc number reversed, but also GC is using a time travel capable chat client, implying they're in another universe.

GC: you'd "h8" this "vaguely ominous Doomer 8ullshit." GC: but this time... GC: i really feel like it's true. GC: i'm going to play TC's game with some of my friends today...

A universe with a "game". GC was Terezi's tag originally, but this character is using a purplish #8E5594 font color instead of teal. That hex doesn't match Eridan (6a006a) or Feferi (77003c), so it's not a troll blood color despite the grey (clawed) hands. Perhaps she's in the DirkRose session? The original TC was Gamzee (terminallyCapricious), but I think these characters will be nothing like their handles imply, even as GC and AG are friends.

GC: AA (that's oomf)---* has def been bugging you about this because she cannot fucking help herself... GC: if it's one thing she gonna do it's bug or fuss or meddle. GC: heh well, i guess that's three things.

We also have an AA, which was Aradia's tag originally, but "bug or fuss or meddle" is a line associated with Kanaya.

GC: except she's not an oracle. GC: she's some other shit... GC: to keep it real with you i don't really understand it... but that's kind of the whole deal with magic, right? GC: you don't have to understand it, just believe in it... GC: i kind of forgot where i was going with this. GC: oh yeah... GC: she said that she was certain that you would play with us. GC: obvs i called bullshit...

So, this is either the greatest red herring in history, or confirmation that the Omega Kids are in fact going to play SBURB. That was the running assumption but I think we have this on lock now. AA might have prospit cloud visions, or (more likely?) has her own witchy thing going on.

GC: my roster's so crowded it's making sardines claustrophobic.

Wait, no, GC knows what sardines are? Did Dirk and Rose make sardines, or is this a third planet and a completely unrelated-to-Dirk session?

GC: o-–* GC: good luck, vriska. GC: with everything... GC: o-* GC: so yeah. gavageCunctation's [GC'S] computer exploded.

Oh, the o---* think is a cartoon bomb with a lit fuse. What an ominous ending line. Short update, but a lot to speculate on.

#Homestuck 2 #Homestuck 2 liveblog

13 notes · View notes

choutenyuki-chan · 8 months ago

Text

INTRO!!!

This will hopefully be the first and last time I break character on either of my NSO blogs, but I felt it was necessary to post a real intro considering the things that will be posted on this account.

(TL;DR @ the bottom)

DISCLAIMER!!!

These blogs were created with the purpose of being a creative outlet for my trauma and mental illness. This means that some of the content on this page might be unpleasant for some people. If that's the case, don't view my blog.

To start things off...

16+ only, please. I want to create a safe space for as many people as I can, but I don't want to be responsible for influencing any kids into doing any of the things I speak about.

For anonymity, I'm not going to tell you my actual name, so please just call me Kangel or Ame, depending on the blog you are viewing.

I will do my best to always tag any possible triggers on my heavier posts, so please correct me if I miss a tag or incorrectly tag something.

TRIGGER WARNINGS!!

As I just mentioned, there will be a lot of triggering things posted on both of these blogs. Because of that, I'd like to compile what will be the most common trigger warnings to look out for on this page (will be updated as I post to remain accurate)

Mentions of grooming

Mentions of past trauma

Neglect

Fear of abandonment

Long rambles during panic attacks

Addiction

Abuse/toxic relationships

Intrusive thoughts

Self-harm

Mentions of suicidality

A Bit About Me

I like Jirai and the message it sends as it's something I heavily relate to. I don't have any jirai clothing yet, but I'm saving to buy my first item asap! I also really like vocaloid, visual kei, breakcore, and honestly most kinds of music haha.

If you couldn't guess, I really like NSO. The kind of person Ame-chan is really spoke to me. I've always wanted to take on a new persona online, and what better way than a Kangel blog! I'll speak a little more on the roles of each blog later, tho <3

I really like RPGs like Persona and Final Fantasy as I grew up playing both. They're both really comforting games for me.

I suspect I have Autism and either BPD or bipolar. I'm in the process of trying to find a psychologist to get an assessment and confirm my suspicions, but it's hard to find anyone where I live.

The Kangel blog!

This blog is where I'll post my lighter content. It's my distraction from my actual life and is mainly here for me to pretend I'm someone else. This means that while I'm on the Kangel blog, I'll do things like write in American-English as it's another layer of disconnect from my real life.

There will be much less triggering content on this blog, but there will be an occasional vent post, but that will likely be written in the style of the in-game vent streams and tweets. That means it will likely be a bit dramatised to sound entertaining. Those posts will still have tagged TWs regardless.

The Ame-Chan blog!

This blog is like the priv Twitter account that Ame has in-game. Darker posts will go here, and almost everything will be a vent of some kind. If I feel it's necessary, I will also add a 'check the tags' disclaimer at the beginning of the post so you can decide whether you're in the right headspace to read that post. This is essentially my diary tho and sometimes I just might not add tags. I'll always do my best tho.

This blog is essentially a public diary, which means there will be a lot of in-depth description of my current state and any retelling of past trauma. "Traumadumping" about my childhood will be kept at a minimum though.

This also means that I will occasionally post about dreams I have. I rarely have good dreams, and they're almost always some kind of dream relating to trauma. These normally have a different list of TWs to look out for (including the original list).

I will list those below:

Kidnapping

SA (sometimes explicit, but I will likely never go into those details unless I found it particularly distressing. Those will always be under different tags, though)

Running away/homelessness

Survival game type plot

Physical abandonment

Murder

There will likely be more added as this account develops.

Both blogs, but primarily the Ame one, will occasionally mention a P-Chan. This refers to two different people, but I'll never disclose which is which. This is mostly for privacy.

P-Chan 1 refers to a real-life person I know and have a semi-toxic friendship with. If I succumb to the BPD allegations, I'd assume they're my 'favourite person'.

P-Chan 2 is fake. They don't exist. They're a character in my head who is my ideal person. They exist so that I have someone to project my unhealthy obsession onto instead of the real P-Chan. This often also means posting the intrusive thoughts I have around P-Chan.

OUTRO!!!

I tried to keep this short while having as much info about this page as needed. I hope this can be a safe space for anyone who relates to me and wants to get to know me. I'm always open to making new friends <33

TL;DR

Mentally ill girl creates blogs to ignore her problems and vent while staying as anonymous as she can. Triggering posts galore, but it will be tagged to the best of her ability.

#ooc #introduction post #intro post #trigger warning list #menhera #jirai kei #needy streamer overload #pien kei #ぴえん系 #landmine girl #kangel104 #amechan26

6 notes · View notes

hiswordsarekisses · 1 year ago

Text

This is so good and so true:

DO WE NEED MULTIPLE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS? WHAT TRANSLATIONS SHOULD WE USE? By Lynette Hughes:

I am writing this in response to several Facebook friends who have questioned my reasons for using various Bible translations rather than exclusively using the King James Bible. If you are convinced that the King James Version is the only legitimate English Bible and that all other translations are false then please don’t waste your time reading this article because nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. If you love and enjoy your KJV, then by all means, you should continue to use and enjoy it. For myself, I believe multiple versions of the Bible can actually be an aid in understanding the message of the Bible, although, I personally like to go back to my primary study Bible [NIV], to compare scriptures.

Since the King James version was translated in 1611 many Bible transcripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate. When Bible scholars research through these older manuscripts they have discovered that some words, phrases, and sentences were added to the Bible either intentionally or accidentally. The verses that you see missing are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts and the translators have removed these verses and placed them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not believe they were part of the original manuscripts of the Bible. Bible translators do not compare a translation against another translation, but against the manuscripts that were used.

It is nothing but myth that the King James Version is perfect. A 1611 King James version is virtually unreadable by the average person today, and there have been over thousands of corrections in the KJV from 1611 through 1769 edition, which is the version we use. And, although I believe that the KJV remains an excellent translation, yet today this 400-year-old version remains difficult to comprehend in all too many passages. Everything from the spelling, to syntax, to grammar, to phraseology is very different from what we speak today.

To complicate things, the KJV uses many archaic and obsolete words which have changed in meaning over time and do not convey what the original translators intended to express.. If you were brought up on the King James Version or you have been reading it for years, you might not quite realize how totally foreign sounding the King James Version is to modern readers. Estimates are that the King James Version uses 827 words and phrases that have since changed their meaning or are not used at all. When the Bible is translated, it should be translated into how a people/language group speaks. We understand the written Word of God best when we can read it in our own language – in the vernacular of the day – not how it was spoken hundreds of years ago.

I do realize many people have gotten used to a particular Bible version and resist any attempts to update or revise it, but fierce loyalty to a particular version of the Bible is illogical and for some advocates idolatrous. No doctrine essential for salvation is affected by translations, modern or ancient—unless done by a particular cult to promote its liberal agenda or belief system. There is no perfect translation of the English Bible, as the Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, not English. Each translation has its own strengths and weaknesses, and I am not arguing for any specific version.

Hand a KJV to a young person, or even an older person, and ask them to read 1 Thess. 4:5 and then explain to you what "concupiscence" means. Here is another one: "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may WITHOUT the word be won by the CONVERSATION of the wives;"1 Peter 3:1. That sounds like a total contradiction until one learns that CONVERSATION in that verse does not mean speech, but behavior. The meaning of the word in English is no longer the same. A prime example of words taking on a different meaning because of culture is the Christmas song "Don we now our gay apparel, Fa la la, la la, la la la, la." That would have a totally different connotation today.

I certainly concede that the KJV is virtually unsurpassed in poetic beauty and literary elegance. But literary beauty and elegance are not substitutes for clarity. We read the Bible in an effort to know what it’s saying. Reading several translations based on different manuscripts can unlock different shades of meaning that you may have previously missed. It can clarify passages of Scripture, and help you see a verse in a different way.

For those trying to choose a Bible, I would encourage each of you to pick a word-for-word, literal translation [such as, NASB, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, MEV, ESV, or the less literal Bible translations, such as the NIV and NLT (a combination of word for word and thought for thought'), as your primary study Bible, then use other paraphrased versions that may be easier to read to help you wrestle through difficult passages and compare them with your primary Bible translation. If there are distinct differences between versions, you may find it helpful from time to time to utilize the Greek and Hebrew lexicon to verify biblical definitions.

Some Bible versions translate less literally, and should not be used as a Christian’s primary Bible. Bibles, such as The Living Bible, GNT, TLB, NEB, the Amplified Bible and God’s Word are paraphrased to reflect what the author thinks the Bible says, not necessarily what the Bible actually says. A paraphrase of the Bible should be used more as a commentary, a way to get another perspective, but should not be viewed as accurate as it is an author’s idea of what the Bible says. A paraphrased Bible allows the greatest degree of liberty in translation and leaves too much room for personal interpretation [2 Peter 1:20].

Some Bibles, such as The New World Translation [used by Jehovah’s Witnesses], the Message, the Passion Bible, as well as feminist and homosexual versions, are doctrinally corrupt mistranslations that have the specific purpose of altering Scripture to agree with their beliefs; they have an agenda all their own.

The Message Bible promotes the mystical New Age message with a boldness that's never been seen in a mainstream Bible. “Lord” occurs 7,970 times in the King James Bible and the Message contains the Lord only 71 times. I could go on and on but let me clarify one thing.... The amputation of these words, of which there are many more, are no accident. It is not an issue in translation or Greek manuscripts. It's also not a matter of updating archaic words or making it easier to understand. It was a deliberate and intentional doctrinal decision to remove the "Lord" and the use of the "Lord Jesus".

Above all, when we are choosing a Bible and/or comparing scriptures, we must ask God for wisdom and discernment. The Spirit of God will enlighten us to hear and understand the truth of God’s written Word and apply it to our lives. It is every Christians privilege to ask and expect the teaching and guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are not left to be absolutely dependent on any interpretation of man. 1 Corinthians 2:5 KJV says “That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men. But in the power of God.”

39 notes · View notes

alexjcrowley · 5 months ago

Text

I NEED ADVICE FROM AO3 USERS PLEASE

So I have this fanfiction I am working on and it's about a two white guys (it's an important detail for later) getting together, let's call them A and B. I don't want to reveal who they are, but suffice to say they're a moderately popular ship that has existed for a long time (my fanfiction is about one of many adaptations of a beloved source material).

A and B are a fanon ship: in the specific adaptation I am interested in, the love interest of character A is a girl and a person of colour (this will be relevant later), let's call her C. C is of mixed race in the source material, and in various adaptations she has been cast both as a white person or a person of colour.

I want to say, though, that A, being an extremely popular character, has been shipped with many, many other people before, so it's not really a matter of AxB vs AxC ship wars, I could present a list of I think at least 10 very popular ships in which A in involved.

In my fic, that I am still writing and it's still at its "beginning", I have mentioned C only once. I didn't say anything bad about her, I simply namedropped her: I am planning for her to be a positive character. She will later have a more important role, but that's bedside the point.

I haven't uploaded this fic in a good while, but today in my email I find that I have received a comment in my inbox, saying that it's unbelievable the commitment of people to write fanfictions about AxB, even when the adaptation I am writing about went "faaar out of the way" to make B unfuckable and gave A a love interest, C. The comment also accused everyone who has ever written about this ship of having of a fetish for "white men in their porn" (my fic doesn't have any sex or sexual scene at the moment) and not allow "girls or people of color" (I have not specified the ethnicity of any original character in my fic, and at the moment the most developed of them is a woman).

The comment does not even address me directly, it's a rant that could have easily been Tumblr post, and apparently it's frozen? I don't understand, but I can't reply.

I'll be honest, I don't know what the fuck I am supposed to do in this situation. Do I understanding the sentiment behind the rant? Yes. Do I think she has a point in how ship between a white guy and another white guy are more popular than any other kind of ships in fandom? Sure.

But my fic is pretty much just one amongst the hundreds about this ship. What am I supposed to do about it? It's not like she specified anything specific I said in my fic was racist or sexist, it's just the inherent concept of that ship, I guess. It's not even addressed to me, in a way, it's like the person was talking in general.

Am I a bitch if I decide to delete the comment? I am conflicted. It's not like I disagree with the sentiment of the speech, but it's an upsetting comment to see. I am definitely not one of the main creators or promoters for this ship, this is the first and only public fanfiction I have ever written. I hardly speak of this fic on here.

I haven't updated it in months, many months, so it's not like it could have popped on the general ao3 fandom page for the adaptation it is about. Whoever wrote this comment had to look specifically for my fic and then left that. What do I do about it? Block and delete? Is it acceptable? I have read on ao3 for a long time, but I am new to writing for ao3 and I don't know the etiquette.

I have always been of the idea of "don't like don't read". If you find yourself reading my fic and I say something that's racist/sexist/ableist/discriminatory, please tell me! I will correct it. But looking specifically for something you hate to tell me that you hate it in general, like I was personally responsible and could do something about it, leaves me confused.

Oh and the comment was left under the first chapter. The fic currently has six, and C wasn't mentioned in the first chapter.

EDIT:

Thinking about it, it was pretty fucking weird, because I clicked on the account who sent the comment and they had only written one fanfiction. And it was about a ship with A. But it wasn't with C!!! It was with another white man! So. What the hell. Why are you preaching if even you don't follow through your own principles.

#ao3 #fic #fanfic #fanfiction #help #mlm

2 notes · View notes

nosuchthingasaburdenonsociety · 2 years ago

Text

This was originally a Facebook comment in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that I’ve taken to reprinting here in reponse to the mass shootings I hear about, such as in Louisville last Monday and, since I sometimes take a week to get it done, in Dadeville yesterday. (And, please bear in mind, these are only the ones I hear about, meaning the ones with mass media coverage which hardly happens in every case.) When I reprinted it at the time of the Annapolis Capital Gazette shooting, for the first time I got a substantial amount of pushback, so now rebuttals to the counterarguments I have received then and since are in a lengthy appendix to the reprint text.

My usual procedure for responding to any substantive new comment to a reposting of this is to edit my response into the next posting, or sometimes of the current posting, rather than to reply directly. This is because, when I allow myself to get sucked into engaging with counterarguments directly, almost always I end up wearied again by new, merely paraphrased instances of the same old arguments already rebutted here.

I keep saying "it’s proven that the killing can be stopped" and you keep saying, "but we have rights" as if having rights was an end in itself. No, rights are intended to serve a purpose.

They’re for preventing people getting killed! You keep invoking directly or indirectly one sentence in a document that was written in an era when rifles, pistols, and cannons could hold only one projectile at a time and took minutes to reload [EDIT: supposed factual inaccuracy of this statement is addressed in the appendix]. That document also contains the built-in capacity for itself to be updated when its provisions are no longer effective. It is not Holy Writ. It even presented itself as updateable before it was completed: the sentence you’re so fond of is itself an amendment. Do you believe the sentence in question was written ultimately for the protection of guns or for the protection of lives? Because it’s used for protecting only one of the two, these days, and that’s not lives. Therefore it needs updating.

I will not accept any citation of theoretical future insurrection against a government turned hostile (which government, by the way, in that event would use planes or drones to drop bombs, against which your home weaponry is no protection - it’s doing so right now to civilian populations overseas, and it did so during the 20th century in Tulsa and Philadelphia - so good luck storming the capital) because firstly, actual civilian innocent lives being lost in the present are more important than any merely theoretical future; and secondly, that’s not what the Second Amendment was truly about anyhow. The militia it refers to were the nation’s first police forces whose original formation was for the purpose of hunting and killing black people. The only valid (using the term loosely) reason for denying that the Second Amendment now requires amendment itself is that you’re okay with police shootings of people of color. Those US government bombings on US soil I mentioned parenthetically above? Black neighborhoods, residences and businesses, rich and poor. That’s what you’re defending whether or not you know it.

You think your postion is "rights are important" but you aren’t seeing the context, the difference between what you think the rights are for, and how they are instead now actually being utilized. You aren’t seeing the logical fallacy in what you’re saying which is "this right whose purpose is the protection of innocent lives is more important than all the innocent lives that are being destroyed by people exercising this right". You aren’t seeing that your position ultimately reduces to "lives are less important than guns" but I do and it outrages me wherever I see it.

Even if you were correct that Americans’ minds somehow work differently than the minds of all the people in all the nations where gun law successfully prevents mass shootings (which, by the way, seems disproven by the majority popular support of the gun control legislation that Congress brought after Sandy Hook then voted down), it would only mean that disregard for human life has become the American way. It’s not in me to quietly allow that to stand. While that’s your position there can be no meeting of minds between us, no agreement to disagree. I may give up arguing with you in particular as a bad job, but never mistake that for concession.

The question before us is, "Lives or guns?", and you keep answering, "Guns."

[end of reprint]

Popular counterarguments I’ve received:

1. Inquiries as to what form I would give the gun control law I advocate and what type of guns I would see banned. I would model such laws on the laws that have drastically reduced or have eliminated mass shootings in all nations that have implemented them including, at one time, the United States. I would use those laws’ definition of what was banned. (I anticipate receiving complaints that this statement is not specific enough to sealion but, because such a law were better drafted by someone with legislative expertise and experience and a research staff than by an unpaid webcartoonist, I consider that a feature not a bug.) (I anticipate rebuttals that the previous parenthetical statement constitutes effective admission on my part that I’m too ignorant on the subject to have an opinion at all, but you don’t need to be a plumber to know when you need your toilet rooted out.)

2. Rebuttals seeming to assume that I’m calling for the banning of all guns. Nowhere in the reprint did I call for that. What I called for were two things: the reexamination of the Second Amendment just like any other legislation that’s two and a half centuries old and therefore in need of review, and the implementation in the United States of the solution proven by other nations (and by, at one time, the United States) for the problem of mass shootings which is some manner of national gun control. Now, it may be that the U.S. needs to ban all handguns like some nations, or only some guns like other nations, or ban guns from only certain demographics such as those with known domestic abuse history (which would rule out a percentage of police which might astound you) and as known violent crime offenders, and may need even to experiment at first to find out what’s best, I can’t say. And I didn’t say here (for the reason noted parenthetically in the above paragraph). It remains that the loss of life under the status quo is unacceptable to me and to the majority of the nation (the majority who supported the national gun control bill in Congress after Sandy Hook which bill failed due to special interest lobbying) and requires action be taken; that’s what I say when I say, “The question is, ‘Lives or guns?’”.

3. Rebuttals that gun control won’t stop criminals from killing people. That’s off the topic. The topic is not stopping all murders or violence, the topic is stopping mass shootings, for which national gun control is drastically or wholly effective in every nation that has implemented it, including at one time the United States. (My impression that some comments assume I’m calling for total gun ban may only be an artifact of this consistent failure of counterarguments to focus on the topic.) Refusal to implement the known solution to a given problem on the grounds that it’s not a solution for all problems is not rational.

(Also: The presumption that a given argument’s focus on one topic demonstrates indifference in the speaker/writer on any or all other topics is one of the classic logical fallacies. That means, declining to be deflected off topic by the subject of other violent crime in a discussion of mass shootings in comments on my own post about mass shootings does not demonstrate that I don’t care about the victims of other violent crime; that’s the tu quoque logical fallacy, known in these online days as “whataboutism”. Declining to be deflected to other topics than mass shootings demonstrates, and demonstrates only, that my post’s topic is mass shootings.)

4. Rebuttals to my discussions of the unexamined racism in the second amendment pointing out, correctly, that gun control since emancipation has often been purposefully biased against black people … as if that were a reason to oppose gun law reform instead of a reason to support it. …or as if I were arguing in favor of racially biased gun law, when unexamined racial bias is the only actual specific complaint the reprint brings against the second amendment.

5. Rebuttals (but not genuine rebuttals, deflection attempts, obviously) that the first amendment also has not been updated since it was enacted, which means I must want that one reexamined too. It can be difficult to judge tone in writing but I’m reasonably certain comments to this effect are in bad faith and are pursuing an anticipated gotcha moment, when I’m expected to bluster, “Well, that’s different,” and be caught in a contradiction somehow. But this is, in fact, different. However the reason it’s different is not that I oppose reexamination of free speech rights (as such an attempted gotcha would be predicated on) because I don’t oppose it. The reason it’s different is that reexamination of free speech rights happens, in exactly the manner I’m advocating for gun rights.

Over the last two-plus centuries there’s been plenty of Supreme Court case law on free speech (and obviously these are only cases that weren’t resolved in lower courts). Most SCOTUS free speech case law consists of the striking down of laws that were ruled to violate the first amendment but there have also been innovations in SCOTUS free speech case law. For example, a case from 1969 gave rise to the “imminent danger test” used, to this day, for determining whether a given sample of hate speech is protected speech or not. Constitutional protection was determined by SCOTUS not to apply to something whose obvious intended and sole purpose is to harm people immediately, quickly, violently, and in large numbers.

I’m going to say that twice because it’s important: In 1969 constitutional protection was determined by SCOTUS not to apply to something whose obvious intended and sole purpose is to harm people immediately, quickly, violently, and in large numbers.

Of course I support periodic reexamination of the first amendment. I support it as an existing model for what the second amendment stands badly in need of. (More of the Constitution too, possibly, but the topic on the floor is mass shootings.)

It’s the same with the obvious, bad faith, unabashedly transparent gotcha attempt I also get, “There wasn’t internet technology when the Constitution was written so you must want to get rid of the internet like you want to get rid of modern weapons.” As above, this objection fails because it inadvertently supports my point: internet regulations are being created and struck down all the time. It’s another example of how our laws are meant to be treated. And of how they generally have been treated. But gun law hasn’t.

Same with the counterargument that maintains allowing any restriction at all to our rights is a slippery slope. If it is a slippery slope, we live on that slope already because - as noted in my reprinted post - the Constitution was purposefully built by its writers smack in the middle of that slope. Again: feature, not bug. (“Slippery slope”, by the way, is also on all lists I see of common logical fallacies.)

One of the quotations of Jefferson engraved on the Jefferson Monument in Washington D.C. is: “I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816.

6. A rebuttal to the factual accuracy of my statement in the reprinted post, “You keep invoking directly or indirectly one sentence in a document that was written in an era when rifles, pistols, and cannons could hold only one projectile at a time and took minutes to reload;” the rebuttal sourced by, e.g., the article linked below detailing the history of several more efficient firearm designs dated to or predating 1787. I stand corrected. It is within the realm of possibility that the writers of the Constitution were familiar with these designs. However the only claim made in the article of actual use of such a weapon, the Ferguson breech-loading flintlock which fired “up to seven rounds per minute, two to three times faster that the muzzle-loading weapons of the day“, on American soil before the writing of the Constitution was “by the British against the Americans in 1777”. The Wikipedia article on the Puckle gun, a mounted gun documented to fire nine rounds per minute, makes a point of asserting no more than two may ever have been manufactured (apparently on the basis that only two survive to the present). These guns existed in the late 18th century but they were few and would have been prohibitively expensive to the private citizen or to the military- or law- officer; if not, the Colt revolver wouldn’t have been such an innovation when it came along some fifty years later.

Thank you for the correction on historical detail. However the contemporary existence of these designs, somewhere on the planet or somewhere on the same contintent and not all of them historically documented to have been actually manufactured anywhere let alone mass-produced at reasonable cost, hardly demonstrates that the writers of the Constitution anticipated the proliferation we have today of the automatic rifles which fire a thousand bullets a minute or the mounted guns which fire six thousand bullets a minute.

Come to that, bullets were not invented until about sixty years after the drafting of the Constitution. However quickly the founding fathers imagined it was possible for guns to shoot projectiles, the projectiles they would’ve been imagining were small metal balls, not constructions designed to mutilate bodies beyond recognition. The Uvalde, Texas shooting victims’ families were required to submit to DNA swabbing for the coroners to determine which corpses were whose children, and all reports suggest the same will have been necessary in Nashville.

It’s pure speculation whether the founding fathers had any concept of the possibility of the degree of destructive power of today’s firearms, unless someone reading this can produce further historical documentation. And even with such confirmation it’s beside my actual point, which is:

The writers of the Constitution did foresee, and designed the Constitution to accomodate, that it would at times need to be updated with the will of the majority. In regard to the second amendment and to gun control law generally that hasn’t happened and needs to start happening because the lack is costing lives. In regard to the intent of the founding fathers: Jefferson said the Constitution ought to be rewritten from scratch every twenty years.

7. Rebuttals suggesting or stating that contriving somehow to place the proverbial “good guy with a gun” on the scene of a mass shooting shall prevent/should have prevented it. Usually it’s a variation on a statement of willingness and eagerness in the genuinely admirable goal of defending themselves, their loved ones and neighbors, and their rights with their automatic rifles; insisting that the question isn’t “Lives or guns?” but something like “Lives defended with guns or lives left undefended?”. This appears to be the only proposed alternative solution by automatic weapon advocates to national gun control law in the problem of mass shooting deaths.

(The only proposed alternate solution besides doing nothing, under the counterargument that we don’t need any further gun control because violent crime rates are dropping. I guess everyone’s meant to just wait in an orderly fashion for the random slaughter of innocents to eventually stop? Gun crime stats may be falling, but mass shooting deaths are rising; they averaged more than one per day in 2022, and the figures I see for 2023 are the same or worse. That’s why the whole of violent crime is a whole separate topic. Anyway, the CDC says gun related deaths have most recently been rising - at least in, surprise surprise, open carry states [citation below].)

How the presence of a good guy with a gun would have been/will be arranged ahead of time in any given specific case past or future hasn’t been made clear to me. I suppose each individual advocate is suggesting their personal presence with a gun on them makes a location safe from mass shootings for everyone. But one commenter did ask me whether I knew of any “successful” mass shootings where a good guy with a gun was present. For that I have answers. These are just the examples of which I already knew without doing any research [I researched anyway and there are citations below]:

After the shooting at the Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas, the mayor stated there were many armed civilians present, who did not draw or use their firearms. The official position on that, paraphrased: “Good! They’d only have made themselves appear to law enforcement that they were our target.”

There was a “good guy with a gun” at the Parkland, Florida school shooting. Not an armed civilian who happened to be nearby, a trained uniformed county sheriff department law enforcement official stationed there from a division charged with serving and protecting the schools specifically. He was recorded on camera when the shooting started going up to the building’s entrance and standing there outside for the duration. In the intervening time there have been conflicting rulings on whether it had been the uniformed official’s responsibility to act differently [citation below]. But still, this is disproof that the mere presence of a “good guy with a gun” and the presumption that they'll take action is any practical protection whatsoever.

Most recently, there were police on the scene in Uvalde before the shooter entered the school who reportedly exchanged fire with him but did not prevent him from entering nor follow him in. He did not have body armor [citation below], but their reason for failing to stop him was they thought he did. At least, they stated they thought he did and that that was their reason for failure. And later on it's come out that they hesitated because they had identified that he was carrying an AR-15 [citation below].

I anticipate being accused of cherrypicking data for making answer to a specific request for specific examples of specifically this kind of thing. But, while I was looking around collecting citations for those events, I also found a 2014 FBI study that tells us mass shooters are stopped more often by unarmed civilians than by armed civilians. That’s a national statistic documented and released by civil law enforcement authority, not a cherrypicking. And while the report, in its own words, “support[s] the importance of training and exercises - not only for law enforcement but also for citizens” (without, unless I missed it, making any judgment on whether more or fewer civilians ought to be undertaking such gun ownership and training), it distinguishes between that and prevention, stating also, “seeking to avoid these tragedies is clearly the best result.”

A good guy with a gun does not constitute needed and recommended prevention for mass shootings in the eyes of federal law enforcement authority.

Finally, the good guy with a gun argument is a bad-faith logical fallacy at its heart. The logic statement form “if you or someone else on the scene of your mass shooting had had a gun, then you wouldn’t have got shot” is the same logic statement form as “if you dressed differently, then you wouldn’t have got raped”. This is a logical fallacy because law-abiding people’s right not to have crimes committed against them isn’t legally, morally, or factually contingent on their own behavior. The logic of the “good guy with a gun” argument places responsibility for the consequences of the actions of the mass shooters elsewhere than on the shooters, and that’s why it’s a logical and moral fallacy and why in simple practical terms it fails to constitute prevention.

sources

mass shooting deaths rising http://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history/

gun homicides rising per CDC https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/homicides-using-guns-31-percent-cdc-finds-n895366

Dallas https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/about-that-good-guy-with-a-gun/2016/07/11/3ed098fe-47a2-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html?utm_term=.9271a0507018

Parkland https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/the-parkland-shooting-did-have-a-good-guy-with-a-gun.html

FBI report https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/fbi-report-active-shooters_b_5900748.html https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view

The Parkland sheriff officer liability https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/12/21/us-judge-says-law-enforcement-officers-had-no-legal-duty-protect-parkland-students-during-mass-shooting/

no body armor in Uvalde https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2022/05/25/khou-11-in-houston-the-uvalde-gunman-was-not-wearing-body-armor/

Uvalde cops scared of AR-15 https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-police-were-afraid-of-the-uvalde-gunman-s-ar-15-166823493564

8. “You sound like a Nazi.” Another fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

9. “Correlation is not causation. There is no scientific evidence of causation.” The lack of evidence to support causation is a contrivance, the result not of conclusion from investigation but of the willing, purposeful obstruction of investigation into causation. From the NBC News article linked above on rising gun homicide rates: “[The CDC] regularly reports on gun deaths, but its role in researching the underlying causes has been limited by the so-called Dickey Amendment, which is tacked on to congressional funding legislation every year. It bars the CDC from using federal funding to ‘advocate or promote gun control'.” Powerful gun control opponents in Washington DC are afraid of the evidence being investigated, which betrays that gun control opponents are as certain as gun control supporters what proper investigation of the evidence would show.

But there certainly is correllation. From the same article: “[M]ore states had loosened rules on gun ownership and the carrying of guns at around the same time that firearms homicide rates went up.“ That’s a negative example. For a positive example, there’s every nation, e.g. Scotland/the United Kingdom, to have had one mass shooting decades ago and in response implemented gun control only to have few or no more mass shootings since that first one in the same period of time that the U.S. has had escalating deaths from mass shootings. In fact, there's the U.S., where certain types of automatic weaponry were banned for about ten years but the ban was allowed to lapse and the number of shootings per year has gorwn every year since.

Even if there’s no causation, when the correlation saves lives - as it demonstrably, statistically does - then the lives are still saved.

10. “'Lives or guns’? I choose guns.” Here I deliberately evoke the no-meeting-of-minds clause in the reprint post for declining to engage with you which is nevertheless not to be mistaken by you as any kind of concession. It's not a rebuttal of anything I've written and says more about you than about me or about my argument.

11. The first few times I had cause to reprint this essay since January 6, 2021 I felt that my remark in my quoted Facebook comment’s paragraph about self-defense against tyranny, “good luck storming the capital” (a flip allusion to The Princess Bride dialog), called for some sort of comment or qualifier, since a storming of the Capital is now an actual historical event whose consequences to date to its top-level organizers have been minimal. But ultimately, while the insurrectionists brought onto the scene a gallows (ultimately unused), and while there were five deaths including a police officer, gun presence doesn’t seem to have had any significance (little enough that Fox News has even lied that there were no firearms brought in by the insurrectionists).

12 (conclusion). My stance is: nationally banning at least some kinds of guns is an effective solution to the problem of mass shootings, its effectiveness proven and documented for the purpose in every case it’s been implemented including formerly the United States, and therefore it needs to be reimplemented in the United States. The second amendment needs to start being treated the same way every other law/right in the United States is treated in terms of review and update against constantly developing status quo and technology. No counterargument to the statements in my reprint yet brought to my attention either 1) provides a proven alternative for mass shooting prevention other than the proven solution I advocate 2) fails to amount to answering, “Lives or guns?”, with, “Guns.” (Except “You called me racist!” which is untrue; what I called you was ignorant about racism.)

#guns #gun safety #second amendment #second amendment rant

12 notes · View notes

transformers-mosaic · 2 years ago

Photo

Transformers: Mosaic - Transformers Animated

Originally posted on June 6th, 2008

"See you in August" - Waseem Bashar "Excited yet?" - Matt C. Adams

TFW2005 (announcement) | TFW2005 (update) | BotTalk

wada sez: Surprise, we’re back doing another event already! Prompted by the success of The End of the Beginning..., the Mosaic team decided to follow up with another event, this time themed around the fan-favourite Transformers Animated, coinciding with the conclusion of the cartoon’s second season. This event was deliberately more constrained, however, limiting the strips’ focus to a set list of characters. Perhaps due to these restrictions, or simply the tastes of typical Mosaic contributors, response was less enthusiastic, leading the deadline to be pushed back. Eighteen characters were suggested, and twenty-one strips were made; as with the previous event, they were posted on Mondays in batches of five or so, and thankfully this time the ordering was handled consistently. Of the suggested characters, only Blitzwing failed to receive a spotlight. Meanwhile, regular strips continued twice-weekly, though the submission guidelines changed: no longer did the Mosaic staff maintain a central “script pool”; instead, they only accepted submissions from people who already had a full creative team. Bashar’s preview here includes an unfamiliar design or two; these are actually character models for the strips he worked on. Now, readers, you’ll have to bear with me over the next few weeks, as it’s been years since I watched any Animated—so if you spot any errors in my annotations, please correct me! I’ve mirrored Josh van Reyk’s announcement for this event below the break, along with unobscured looks at Matt C. Adams’ Ultra Magnus art. Adams was apparently slated to draw an Ultra Magnus strip called “The Hammer Falls”, written by Mike Priest, presumably for this specific event; I’ve dug up the original script for it, but evidently it never came to fruition.

TRANSFORMERS MOSAIC REBOOT…

Well, sort of.

As the project quickly approaches its first birthday in June, the project team have decided it’s the perfect time to re-asses the project and how it runs.

Since its conception last year, the project has grown well beyond our initial plans / hopes, and now there are over 400 people involved with well over 250 pieces in various stages of construction.

These staggering statistics make it nigh on impossible to keep in touch with every member and keep things on track for all the pieces in production, and many people feeling concerned that their piece has fallen off the radar.

The Megatron Origin-based anniversary project has proven to be very successful, with the creative teams being set in place before work begins on a piece and all follow-up being performed each member of the creative team. This has kept things well on track for each piece. Also, we’ve found that specifying a specific theme/setting has really forced everyone to lift their game so to speak and has produced some simply amazing pieces of work.

Further to the issue, with 6 pieces being released per week (to combat the large backlog), we’re not pleased with the small amount of “air time” that each piece receives, as some do tend to get overlooked.

So what does all that mean?

Well, as of June 2008, we will no longer be accepting any scripts from anyone for regular mosaics and there will no longer be a “script pool” for artists to pick from. All Mosaics currently in production will still continue to be a part of the project and will be released as usual, though our plans are to cut down to releasing one piece per week, on Thursdays.

For any writer / artist / colourist wishing to work on a regular Mosaic, they will be required to organize the full creative team before work can begin. Scripts will need to be submitted to the Transformers Mosaic team for approval. The best way to gather up a creative team would be to send a call out on the IDW forums in the “Transformers Mosaic: Discussion” thread, or any of the other sites where Mosaics are posted.

Once we have been approached by a committed creative team, we will supply them with a (currently in progress) Transformers Mosaic Style Guide. This will be a .ZIP file that will contain a standardized TFM logo, layout templates/guides and lettering fonts.

The Anniversary pieces, which were originally intended to be posted all at once, will now be released 10 at a time, every Monday for 4 weeks, stating 7th of June.

For the whole month of July, Transformers Mosaic will be on holiday, so no Mosaics of any sort will be posted during this time and emails / queries will likely not be handled promptly.

After July, regular Mosaics will continue to be posted one every Thursday and to fill the gap on Mondays left by the Anniversary project, we will be running a similar project, but this one is to be set during the new Transformers Animated cartoon. The one downside we found from the anniversary project was that the theme was too “open” and resulted in more pieces than we had planned for, so we’re limiting the number of characters / pieces to be included in the project.

The following characters are to be included in the project;

DECEPTICONS: 1. Megatron 2. Lugnut 3. Blitzwing [claimed] 4. Starscream [claimed] 5. BlackArachnia 6. Lockdown (yeah, technically he’s not a Con, but…)

AUTOBOTS: 1. Optimus Prime 2. Prowl 3. Bulkhead 4. Ratchet 5. Ultra Magnus 6. Sentinel Prime 7. Jazz 8. Bumblebee

DINOBOTS: 1. Grimlock

HUMANS: 1. Sari Sumdac 2. Isaac Sumdac

The same rules will apply for this project as the Anniversary one, though each person may only be involved in one (1) piece, and each piece may only focus on one (1) character from the above list, though multiple characters may appear in one piece. It will be first come, first choice with character assignments. You cannot claim a character until your creative team is assembled and committed.

When you have a creative team lined up, email us at [email protected]. We will base character dibs on receipt time of emails sent to this address ONLY. We will update the above list for availability as often as possible until all slots are taken. If you miss your first choice, re-submit a message for your next choice and so on.

The Transformers Mosaic team will reserve the right to edit / reject scripts at their discretion.

All scripts, listing FULL creative team must be submitted to [email protected] by 30th of June, 2007.

Concerned you might miss out on getting involved in this project? Well, we’re planning on making these projects and ongoing process, so there’s always next time. ;) Also keep in mind that you can still submit regular mosaics if your creative team would still like to work on a TFA piece.

We understand that these new processes may seem unfair to some people, but the project is just getting too sprawled out to manage, and we feel this is the best way to keep things moving smoothly.

We look forward to the next phase of Transformers Mosaic! Huge round of applause to everyone who made it the first year so amazing!

#Transformers #Transformers Mosaic #Maccadam #Transformers Animated #Waseem Bashar #Matt C. Adams #Punch/Counterpunch #Lockdown #Lugnut #Impactor #Ultra Magnus

17 notes · View notes

not-caused-by-those-who-love · 2 years ago

Text

This was originally a Facebook comment in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that I’ve taken to reprinting here in reponse to the mass shootings I hear about, such as the three in a week in California the other week. (And, please bear in mind, these are only the ones I hear about, meaning the ones with mass media coverage which hardly happens in every case.) When I reprinted it at the time of the Annapolis Capital Gazette shooting, for the first time I got a substantial amount of replies in disagreement, so now rebuttals to the counterarguments I have received then and since are in a lengthy appendix to the reprint text.

I keep saying “it’s proven that the killing can be stopped” and you keep saying, “but we have rights” as if having rights was an end in itself. No, rights are intended to serve a purpose.

They’re for preventing people getting killed!

You keep invoking directly or indirectly one sentence in a document that was written in an era when rifles, pistols, and cannons could hold only one projectile at a time and took minutes to reload [EDIT: supposed factual inaccuracy of this statement is addressed in the appendix]. That document also contains the built-in capacity for itself to be updated when its provisions are no longer effective. It is not Holy Writ. It even presented itself as updateable before it was completed: the sentence you’re so fond of is itself an amendment. Do you believe the sentence in question was written ultimately for the protection of guns or for the protection of lives? Because it’s used for protecting only one of the two, these days, and that’s not lives. Therefore it needs updating.

You think your postion is “rights are important” but you aren’t seeing the context, the difference between what you think the rights are for, and how they are instead now actually being utilized. You aren’t seeing the logical fallacy in what you’re saying which is “this right whose purpose is the protection of innocent lives is more important than all the innocent lives that are being destroyed by people exercising this right”. You aren’t seeing that your position ultimately reduces to “lives are less important than guns” but I do and it outrages me wherever I see it.

The question before us is, “Lives or guns?”, and you keep answering, “Guns.”

[end of reprint]

Popular counterarguments I’ve received:

2. Rebuttals seeming to assume that I’m calling for the banning of all guns. Nowhere in the reprint did I call for that. What I called for were two things: the reexamination of the Second Amendment just like any other legislation that’s two and a half centuries old and therefore in need of review, and the implementation in the United States of the solution proven by other nations (and by, at one time, the United States) for the problem of mass shootings which is some manner of national gun control. Now, it may be that the U.S. needs to ban all handguns like some nations, or only some guns like other nations, or ban guns from only certain demographics such as those with known domestic abuse history (which would rule out an uncomfortable percentage of police) and as known violent crime offenders, and may need even to experiment at first to find out what’s best, I can’t say. And I didn’t say here (for the reason noted parenthetically in the above paragraph). It remains that the loss of life under the status quo is unacceptable to me and to the majority of the nation (the majority who supported the national gun control bill in Congress after Sandy Hook which bill failed due to special interest lobbying) and requires action be taken; that’s what I say when I say, “The question is, ‘Lives or guns?’”.

One of the quotations of Jefferson engraved on the Jefferson Monument in Washington D.C. is: "I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and (and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816.

Also, bullets were not invented until about sixty years after the drafting of the Constitution. However quickly the founding fathers imagined it was possible for guns to shoot projectiles, the projectiles they would’ve been imagining were small metal balls, not constructions designed to mutilate bodies beyond recognition. The Uvalde, Texas shooting victims’ families were required to submit to DNA swabbing for the coroners to determine which corpses were whose children.

http://arizonadailyindependent.com/2018/03/11/multi-shot-assault-weapons-of-the-1700s-and-the-2nd-amendment/

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0248

7. Rebuttals suggesting or stating that contriving somehow to place the proverbial “good guy with a gun” on the scene of a mass shooting shall prevent/should have prevented it. Usually it’s a variation on a statement of willingness and eagerness in the genuinely admirable goal of defending themselves, their loved ones and neighbors, and their rights with their automatic rifles; insisting that the question isn’t “Lives or guns?” but something like “Lives defended with guns or lives left undefended?”. This appears to be the only proposed alternative solution to national gun control law in the problem of mass shooting deaths.

(The only proposed alternate solution besides doing nothing, under the counterargument that we don’t need any further gun control because violent crime rates are dropping. I guess everyone’s meant to just wait in an orderly fashion for the random slaughter of innocents to eventually stop? Gun crime stats may be falling, but mass shooting deaths are rising - they averaged more than one per day in 2022, and the figures I see for 2023 are the same or worse - and that’s why the whole of violent crime is a whole separate topic. Anyway, the CDC says gun related deaths have most recently been rising - at least in, surprise surprise, open carry states [citation below].)

How the presence of a good guy with a gun would have been/will be arranged ahead of time in any given specific case past or future hasn’t been made clear to me. But one commenter did ask me whether I knew of any “successful” mass shootings where a good guy with a gun was present. For that I have answers. These are just the examples of which I already knew without doing any research [I researched anyway and there are citations below]:

There was a “good guy with a gun” at the Parkland, Florida school shooting. Not an armed civilian who happened to be nearby, a trained uniformed county sheriff department law enforcement official stationed there from a division charged with serving and protecting the schools specifically. He was recorded on camera when the shooting started going up to the building’s entrance and standing there outside for the duration. In the intervening time there have been conflicting rulings on whether it had been the uniformed official’s responsible to act differently [citation below]. But still, this is disproof that the mere presence of a “good guy with a gun” is any protection whatsoever.

A good guy with a gun does not constitute needed and recommended prevention for mass shootings in the eyes of federal law enforcement authority.

Finally, the good guy with a gun argument is a logical fallacy at its base. The logic statement form “if you or someone else on the scene of your mass shooting had had a gun, then you wouldn’t have got shot” is the same logic statement form as “if you dressed differently, then you wouldn’t have got raped”. This is a logical fallacy because law-abiding people’s right not to have crimes committed against them isn’t legally, morally, or factually contingent on their own behavior. The logic of the “good guy with a gun” argument places responsibility for the consequences of the actions of the mass shooters elsewhere than on the shooters, and that’s why it’s a logical and moral fallacy and why in simple practical terms it fails to constitute prevention.