#because that would directly implicate

[turian]

mind you of course the us/canada/uk etc can't reckon with the fact that "good germans" are instrumental in the perpetuation of genocides because they are built on and continue to profit from genocide lol. therefore genocide must be taught as an isolated incident instead of something that echoes down generations in multiple ways. and in removing genocides from their contexts in those ways i think they also serve themselves by isolating genocides from each other instead of teaching people to see the parallels. i feel as if some people refuse to see the parallels between the shoah and the genocide of the Palestinian people currently ongoing, and will instead get bogged down in the details of those comparisons and call the comparison historical revisionism / holocaust inversion and it's like... i think in getting bogged down in semantics, the point of these comparisons is being missed by miles. a genocide does not have to be a 1:1 parallel in order to be compared to another genocide, but also! the parallels are there and they are terrifying. to be clear i think critique of the way these parallels are expressed is fine, but like. the expression "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind.

[creepydoll-lady]

I have a headcanon that I occasionally enjoy indulging in that Donna would have been the ideal vessel for Eva. However, in the early stages of Donna's transformation she did not need the flowers to produce her hallucinations and even Miranda was not immune to her powers. It's uncertain whether Donna herself has control over what she makes people see or whether it is taken from the memory stores of the Black God but either way Mother Miranda is not sticking around to investigate. Not when Donna has such a latch on her mind. Not when she has to watch her Eva's death over and over again.

I like to think that it was Miranda who separated Donna's cadou and implanted it into Angie, spreading her consciousness out so she is incapable of storing enough power to affect Miranda herself. And then, of course, she fiddled the notes, scratching out how she was an unfit vessel, placing the blame on Donna.

[dennisboobs]

the funniest thing when considering the whole serial killer dennis angle is that he is the only member of the gang who has been legally cleared of murder.

[quietwingsinthesky]

im too tired to expand on this fully but consider: s10-11 au constructed around chuck not showing up late in s11 but instead joining up with the winchesters after Fan Fiction. specifically as chuck, not as god, though he is still that and not only a prophet anymore. but sam and dean don’t need to know that. they just know there’s a prophet-shaped hole at the bunker.

chuck being a reoccuring character in the background of s10. talking about the mark with sam, getting badgered by charlie about the books, helping to translate the book of the damned. as it becomes more and more clear that sam’s really going to destroy the mark, he. doesn’t do anything to stop sam. but there’s more and more times where chuck just looks uncomfortable. an emotion that’s a mixture of nausea and fear, that the winchesters can write off as ���nervous weird prophet dude having an episode’.

watching sam and dean a lot, too. in a voyeuristic way, obviously, this is his whole deal, he set them up to be interesting to him, but there’s something else there. grief, maybe. jealousy, definitely.

i just think the whole ‘oh yeah he’s actually god for real btw’ set-up would be better if he was actually around for a bit more recently not being god. or pretending not to be god.

[moodlesmain]

What I'm Made Of (Sonic Heroes OST) 🤝 With Me (Sonic and the Black Knight OST): Final boss songs who's lyrics apply almost just as much to Sonic as they do to the villain he's facing

[the-unofficial-village-idiot]

Thinking about how i've been playing harry in regards to his interactiosn with kim and The Implications of it

[eastgaysian]

the thing about dak-wai is they're perfectly happy never looking deeper into their past, killing anyone who remembers who they used to be, and moving on with their life believing they are a wholly new person. however I have thoughts. which are that they have changed in a way that matters, but on a more basic personality-level they haven't changed as much as they would like to think. and their stupid weird dysfunctional pseudo-siblings relationship with astarion at the moment is a lot like the relationship they used to have with orin. if they ever recalled this for real rather than simply having a little nagging feeling in the back of their head it would cause a truly catastrophic identity crisis

[beanthebugboi]

Canon/Headcanon likelihood chart

So I've been thinking about @macdenlover 's "levels of headcanon" chart (about how heavily a HC is influenced by canon), so I decided to make my own scale about how likely a HC is to be true (including different levels of canon) using queer cartoon characters as examples :)

I just spent an hour making this because I was bored. Enjoy. Image description under the cut.

Inspiration:

ID courtesy of @hatreds-og-imagedescriptions (thank you!!)

[ID: a chart going from 10 to 1, with explanations of the ratings on the left and images of characters with queer flags and descriptions of said characters on the right.

10: "Explicit canon. Clearly stated in the original media." Trans Barney from Dead end Paranormal Park. "Barney says "I'm transgender"".

9: "Implicit canon. Never explicitly stated, but 100% canon in the original media". Nonbinary Raine from The Owl House. "Raine never says "I'm nonbinary," but uses they/them and is never referred to as a man/woman (also, confirmed by Dana)".

8: "Creator confirmation. Never stated in the original media, but confirmed canon by the media's creator". Aroace Lilith from The Owl House. "While never mentioned/implied in TOH, Dana has confirmed that Lilith is aroace".

7: "Heavily implied. Never confirmed, but likely true (either by canon evidence or creator implication)". Genderfluid Nimona from Nimona. ""Aaand now you're a boy" "I am today" (anyway, the whole movie has trans/GNC themes)".

6: "Possibly implied. Hinted at in the original media, but could be explained as something else". Trans Doofenschmirtz from Phineas and Ferb. "Doof COULD be transmasc, or the whole "raised as a girl" thing could just be for the bit".

5: "Fanon. Never confirmed, but generally accepted by the fandom". Aromantic Alastor from Hazbin Hotel. "While only confirmed to be ace, most of the fandom also sees Alastor as aromantic".

4: "HC with evidence. Headcanons supported by a dedicated fan's detective work". Bisexual Mabel from Gravity Falls. "People have noticed bi flag stickers hidden on Mabel's scrapbooks".

3: "Canon neutrality. Could be true, could be false, but overall makes sense and doesn't contradict the original media". Genderqueer Pleakley from Lilo and Stitch. "Maybe Pleakley is genderqueer, maybe he just wanted to crossdress for the mission, who knows? That's why it's a headcanon."

2: "I made it the fuck up. Based on vibes, has absolutely nothing to do with canon". Bisexual Megamind from Megamind. "No evidence, no explanation, he just has Disaster Bi™ vibes".

1: "Um? No? But go off. Directly contradicts canon (but who cares, that's why it's fun)". Trans Stanley Pines from Gravity Falls. "Even though flashback scenes prove Stan is AMAB, some people HC him as transmasc." End of ID.]

[maykitz]

if you can stomach it i would recommend watching the body cam footage of the sonya massey killing, i'll try to describe it but it's hardly possible. you can't truly understand the type of extreme, completely volatile aggression that happens with cops if you haven't seen it, and it's captured here very harrowingly.

several officers are in her house, calmly talking with her about her id and vehicle papers for some time. it's routine administrative stuff, no acute danger or stress whatsoever. one of them tells her to take her pot off the stove, remarking that they don't need a fire in the house now, she walks over into the kitchen and complies. he suddenly backs off towards the front door despite already being several feet away. she asks him where he's going, he says "away from your hot, steaming water." she repeats "my hot, steamin' water?" in an amused tone. then adds "i rebuke you in the name of jesus," in a similar tone while pouring the water down the sink. the atmosphere is completely calm, you might even say amiable.

she's at this point still separated from the cops by her kitchen aisle and several feet of additional distance. the cop prompts her to repeat what she said, she repeats her reply about rebuking him in the name of jesus [edit: i didn't phrase this right in the original post; this phrase is not really a joke but rather used similarly to 'perish the thought'- ie rebuking his implication that she would harm them]. she doesn't even realise there's been a complete 180 in his head. he goes "you better fucking not, i will shoot you in your fucking face," she's stunned by the sudden abusive language for half a second, immediately he draws his gun directly at her head, she gets out a panicked "sorry!" and ducks behind the aisle, he rounds the corner into the kitchen specifically to advance right next to her, immediately fires 3 shots at her head from above at minimal distance. she's dead where she stood, or cowered rather, by the sink in her nightgown.

after a few seconds you hear the click of him turning on his body cam, saying "she came at me with a pot of boiling water." for the recording. he also nonchalantly tells his partner there's no need to get a med kit because it was a headshot. it's one of the most clear cut cases ever and it's fully recorded only because his partner did already have the body cam on throughout.

[arolesbianism]

So I know I said no stalien relationship charts tonight but I never said no dynamics infodumping tonight so erm

Behold. The basic dynamic characters and what very broadly they represent. Some additional notes under the cut 👍

So! To clarify some things, it’s important to note that while all of these can be used as their own independent word, they’re rarely used as such to describe a relationship unless you Really don’t want the person you’re speaking with to know more details, or you are like talking to your boss or smth and are trying to be professional. Even in these situations however, a few of these words are seen as a bit weird, although not unheard of, to describe a relationship with by their own. For example, the clash one is usually seen as more of a modifier to surrounding dynamics, with passion being a similar case. Also important to note that the ones for liking or disliking someone is used pretty conservatively generally speaking, with them mostly used for situations where one is particularly giddy or particular upset to be around someone very consistently. No one can like stop you from using either more liberally, but you’ll probably come off super strong if you do, which tends to turn people off. On the other hand, feel free to use deep or distant very liberally, even combined, as they tend to be the much more general and vague dynamic pieces, and mostly just are used as approximations for how much space the other occupies in ones head.

Now, for this next part, let’s use an actual example on how these pieces are put together and how you describe your dynamics with others in different situations

This is Busy and Dancer’s dynamic, with them having the fairly standard 3 ring dynamic that most good friends will have. More or less rings can be had, but more than 3 is very uncommon, mostly due to most digital spaces and jewelers not supporting more than 3 rings. Generally speaking, the center represents the most boiled down component of the relationship, and this will be the word you use if you are being super duper vague about your dynamic with someone. For these two it’s the pretty standard deep, as they are very close and spend most of their time together. The surface layer usually covers the way you’d describe your relationship to others offhand, so either a simplified version or an altered version that leaves out parts that might be too personal for you to want to share. You may also chose to include things you don’t fully see as part of your dynamic, but think are applicable enough that it’s worth note, such as the like segment that these two have. You also typically will divvy up the space on the ring according to the impression you’re trying to make, which for these two is that they have a very close relationship, and that when they do butt heads it’s affectionately.

The second ring tends to be where things get more complicated, as they’re generally meant to represent the “true” relationship of the individuals involved, and as such how that relationship is conveyed varies wildly from individual to individual. These two have taken a much more simple approach, taking what they see as the consistent cores of their dynamic and not bothering with any extra segmenting. Extra segmenting within one dynamic piece is a common practice used in second rings, usually to emphasize a piece, or to draw attention away from other pieces. Busy and Dancer don’t see much need to place extra emphasis, so they simply use the method of scaling them by relevance. With deep again being their most important piece to them, with clash and passion being the other two bits of consistency they settled on. So for their second ring dynamic, they are basically communicating a close relationship where they sometimes fight, but would still stick with eachother to the end.

Now the last important thing to note is that while it’s commonly expected that people who are particularly close decide on one dynamic circle that encompasses both of their feelings, this is not the norm for most dynamics, and most won’t even communicate their dynamic with the other at all until a second ring is established. Having a second ring with someone basically establishes that they regularly have had a noteworthy impact on your life, and that your relationship is complicated enough that you feel that you two do have a properly established dynamic. It’s generally seen as very important to be able to clearly communicate your dynamics with others that you interact with regularly, and while it’s not uncommon for people to stretch the truth or even flat out lie in their dynamics, it’s still seen as more socially normal than only using one or two descriptors for your dynamics. Most staliens from this society would find the word “friend” to be a frustratingly vague description of someone’s relationship with another person, even if their own words for describing relationships also tends to get kind of vague and interpretive lol.

[haunting-hole]

One detail I've always really liked in dunmeshi's worldbuilding is the difference in life expectancies among races. I don't mean the different rates at which they age but specifically how long they live from the point of view of their own group. For example, dwarfs are directly stated to age 2.5x slower than a tall-man, but where tall-men's life expectancy is only about 60, for a dwarf it would be about 200 (equivalent to 80).

At first this stood out as odd to me but it makes sense when you look up the average lifespan for every race. In general, the short-lived races all have a smaller age of maturity to life expectancy ratio than all the long-lived ones.

I really love this discrepancy because the implication here is that long-lived races not only have longer lifespans due to aging slower, but they also just live longer generally due to a better quality of life, as they have taken the most fertile and livable lands to themselves, resulting in less conflicts over resources and faster technological developments.

Ultimately how long you live isn't just a fantastical element of the setting, but a political one as well.

[the-many-children-of-the-void]

Woke up this morning with a very important thought rattling around in my head.

How do the cars in the 2006 Pixar masterpiece Cars... safely merge?

This is a question that requires analysis. It doesn't really matter for Lightning McQueen before the movie starts, as he explicitly spends all of his time either at the racetrack or inside Mack (the gay subtext of this is for another post), but if we imagine a normal, non-Piston Cup car, how in the blue hell do they merge?

It's flat-out stated during the "driving backwards" scene in the 2006 movie that cars can see their rearview mirrors. This is because, particularly for Mater's character design, his mirrors are always placed outside his field of vision. But the scene states that he must be able to use them, because the purpose of that scene is to set up Lightning driving backwards during the finale and to advance both of the characters, especially in bringing Lightning closer to Mater as a friend. Even with Mater's ability to articulate his side mirrors to a certain degree, he is never able to bend them forward enough to be able to cover his blindspot. Given where the cars eyes are fundamentally located, this leads me to the conclusion that these vehicles are capable of seeing out of their mirrors. While this raises terrifying questions about the structures of car anatomy, we're gonna completely ignore those implications in favor, instead of a minor question about driving on the highway.

Normally, when one is driving, they eliminate the problem of a blind spot by physically turning their head to look at it before they merge and physically see for themselves whether or not another vehicle occupies that space. But characters in Cars (2006) don't have an in-car mirror, so their blindspots should be the gap between the mirrors and their regular fields of view, and directly behind them.

This, of course, raises the question: if the world of Cars was designed and built for sentient cars, and they have such an obviously unsafe limitation, why is the world still designed in a way that would only be safe to humans who can physically turn their heads? That question, after what I can only describe as a bit of a fever dream, leads me to what I see as the only logical conclusion.

Cars can see out of their windows, too, but have evolved camouflage for those eyes so that their prey can't tell where they're looking.

[carriesthewind]

WOW.

Okay, after a night's sleep, I have decided that yeah, there is value in responding to this absolutely steaming pile of ignorant, self-centered, self-important, anti-intellectual, b.s.

It looks like a number of people in the notes were swayed, at least to some degree, by this garbage, so I think it is worth trying to show why it is nonsense.

(Also it's possible I'm still spoiling for a fight after being denied an evidentiary hearing on Friday.)

I'm not reblogging the post because folks don't need a self-aggrandizing tantrum on their dash, but I do think it is worth taking a look for yourself, in order to practice your analytical skills. Some questions to consider as you read:

(1) What is OP saying in her original post? What claims is she making?

(2) How, if at all, does the poster respond to claims OP made? What claims is the poster saying that OP made? Do these match what OP actually said? If not, (a) what techniques does the poster use to transform what OP said into the claims the poster is claiming OP made? (b) What rhetorical purpose does it serve for the poster to warp OP's claims?

(3) What affirmative claims is the poster making? What evidence or arguments do they provide to support their claims? Do they explore any of the specifics or real world implications of their claims? If not, what real world implications of their claims can you think of?

(3) What other rhetorical techniques does the poster use to bolster their argument? Do these techniques actually enhance and support the substance of their argument?

(4) Relatedly, how does the poster play into the biases of their assumed audience (tumblr users with generally progressive policies). What claims do they make to play into those biases? What evidence or argument, if any, do they make to support those claims? Are these claims by the poster reasonably related to the claims made by OP?

Now, let's explore their response in detail!

(Also obviously don't harass the poster, and I would recommend not directly engaging with them at all. Harassment is vile and makes you far worse than them. And earnest engagement is unlikely to be productive - the OP tried to engage with them politely (and even offered to help) in the notes of poster's original post. In response, the poster (1) implied that OP is an obsessive rude busybody. (2) Told OP to "Shhhhh. Chill." (in response to (paraphrased), 'hey, the advice someone else gave you is probably a waste of time and effort'). (3) And finally, after condescendingly telling OP, "Breathe. Practice radical acceptance. Know that I am here on the other side of the internet, flagrantly wasting my effort and thinking of you every second of that time," proceeded to prove that they were, in fact, "thinking of [OP] every second of that time" by searching OP's blog to find this post by OP and dumping this Arrested-Development-level demand to be taken seriously in the reblogs.)

(All of which is to say: hi, poster who was "being vagueposted about." I assume you are reading this, because you demonstrably don't have the good sense to block and move on. I'm not going to block you in advance, because I think you have the right to make your own terrible decisions, and I suspect any response you make is going to be *very* funny. See you in the notes!)

So, let's go through the poster's response, paragraph by paragraph.

They begin by doubling down on the stance that, "any sufficiently deep enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor." This, they say, is their defense of that stance. Let's see how it goes - but first, I think it's worth remembering, OP's original post is literally a single sentence long.

OP's claim, paraphrased, that the claim that "any sufficiently deep enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor" is incorrect and anti-intellectual. If we read the OP's tags, she clarifies that enthusiasm is valuable, but different from expertise.

The poster starts their defense with a long...explanation that the structure of their claim was a reference to the Arthur C Clarke's third "law" (read: sci-fi fiction adage).

*deep breath*

Ok. I'm a big a fan of wordplay as the next person. And I know from personal experience that it can be really frustrating to do some fun wordplay to make a point, and then get misinterpreted here on tumblr.com.

But. The wordplay has to make a point for it to be relevant to your defense. OP's claim wasn't "this poster did a bad job with the linguistic structure of this sentence and is not familiar with classic sci-fi." How does the "rhetorical structure" of the poster's claim support the substance of their claim???

It doesn't, is the answer. The poster explicitly asks this question later down, but then they never actually answer it. Instead, the rhetorical effect of this whole digression is just to throw out surface level references to things (Arthur C Clarke! "AI"!) that might make the poster sound more thoughtful and knowledgeable. It also creates distance from OP's actual point - as the post continues, the poster has to remind us what they're talking about. This gives the poster more control over the narrative, over what claims are under discussion.

Which leads to the poster's next paragraph: the unanswered question of why the poster structured their claim to resemble a sci-fi author's famous quote, and a baseless attack on OP.

And I think it is worth really lingering on this attack on OP. The poster claims, OP perhaps is "misreading or misinterpreting" the poster's point. But what on earth is the poster talking about? OP literally just quoted the poster's exact words and then said that they think this is anti-intellectual. What "misreading or misinterpreting" is being done?

No. Instead, this attack rhetorically sets up the poster's next couple paragraphs: not actually defending their claim as OP originally quoted, but reinterpreting their own words, providing their own special unique meaning that they will then proceed to use for the rest of the post. They are redrawing the rhetorical bounds of the conversation. Rather than defending their stance, they are redefining their stance so that it matches the defense they now want to make.

(Which is still bad. It's a bad defense and it makes me very angry.)

The poster proceeds to define "academic rigor" in a way that just means, "enthusiasm." Notice how no part of their definition includes things like critical thinking skills, building up a knowledge base, testing ideas, receiving criticism (wow I wonder why), or any expertise or action to build up and test that expertise. It's just what a person "cares very much about," how much "curiosity" they have; some inherent quality someone who "NEEDS to know." (Also hit the bell for another surface level reference - this time to Herodotus - to make the poster sound more knowledgeable.) If you actually read the poster's definition, it is entirely "idk vibes i guess."

Now, having defined "academic rigor" as enthusiasm, they successfully declare that enthusiasm is a necessary precondition of enthusiasm.

And then, we get the best paragraph of this entire tantrum of a post: "Any sufficiently deep enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor. It's like a fractal -- the closer you look, the more complicated it gets." No only is this another attempted surface level reference, this time to fractals, but just. What is this supposed to mean. At a glance, it seems like it kind of follows from the last paragraph - maybe, the more an enthusiast looks at something, the more there is to know? But the closer you look at this sentence, the more nonsensical it gets. What does things getting more complicated the more you look at them have to do with academic rigor (either a real definition or the poster's enthusiasm-based definition)? More importantly, what does it have to do with proving the point - that enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor? (You might as well say, "the further you fall down the rabbit hole, the deeper you realize it goes," except then more people would realize you are expressing straight conspiracist reasoning oops.)

Now, several paragraphs in and having firmly taken control of the rhetorical boundaries of the argument, the poster finally decides to provide some context to the original statement (and needlessly insult OP for trying to be helpful again).

The poster correctly quotes relevant parts of the discussion (although mischaracterizes their own responses as "polite" instead of "incredibly condescending and rude"). However, the poster then immediately characterizes OP's response as "muddied." Because words have objective meanings, however, we do not need to accept this characterization. OP expressed her argument very clearly. Rather, it is the the poster who claimed that OP was making an argument that she was not, which we can paraphrase as, 'passion and capacity for learning are limited to formal education at academic institutions.' It would be convenient for the poster if OP was making this argument, because it could be easy to argue against. But since OP clearly stated that she does not believe this clearly incorrect thing that the poster made up in her head, the poster claims that her response was "muddied."

The poster emphasizes this false claim in the next few paragraphs. They say, "to me she seems to be arguing that one MUST (?) receive formal training at an academic institution ("academic training" "trained expertise") in order to achieve that level of rigor." But OP simply doesn't say that. You can look at the reply the poster quoted, it doesn't say what the poster says it does.

Now, this is speculation on my part, but I think the poster really believes that OP is saying 'passion and capacity for learning are limited to formal education at academic institutions.' I think they believe this because its how they feel when they hear the (correct) statement that enthusiasm does not equal expertise. The poster repeatedly says that they think that enthusiasm for learning is the same as expertise. They throw a tantrum after receiving the slightest, politest, disagreement. They think someone giving them advice that hey, maybe its a good idea to get a basic foundation of knowledge before cold-emailing experts is a busybody who is obsessed with lecturing them. The poster simply, demonstrably, doesn't believe expertise is real, and refuses to admit that someone else might know more or better than them. If they "care very much about getting it right," how dare you say they aren't as good as anyone with "academic training," fuck you very much you elitist jerk.

This sense is emphasized by their next paragraph. First, they shift the rhetoric framework of the conversation again. The actual claim the poster says they are defending is that "any sufficiently Deep Enthusiasm is indistinguishable from Academic Rigor" (emphasis added). Now, they are claiming that OP means that no one outside of an academic context "has the capacity to learn what rigor means in their field." These are very different claims, but the poster shits between them seamlessly.

Second, they just completely misunderstand what academic rigor is. I'm sorry, you can read every book and article and (*sigh* dear god) TED talk in the world, that doesn't make you an expert, and that's not academic rigor. A large part of academic rigor is in how you critically engage with what you read. Otherwise you just end up, at best, with a bunch of shallow facts that you can "whip out at dinner parties to impress [your] acquaintances" or sprinkle as references in arguments on tumblr to make you sound smarter.

But no, the poster confirms in the next paragraph, you don't need critical thinking or training or people who will tell you that you are wrong. All you need is the information. And if you disagree, you are arguing in favor of "the ivory tower." (Take a drink.)

In the next two paragraphs, the poster pays lip service to the idea that sure, it's easier to learn in academia. But even then, they imply that somehow that's the easy route, that good learning environments create weak men, that people who are self-taught are the ones who are actually building up the critical thinking skills because someone doesn't just "tell them the answer."

Then, before the readers have a chance to absorb, wait, did you really just say that academia is really just having someone either tell you the answer or where to look for the answer and therefore unsuitable for "sincerely love to learn," (because you are, in fact, anti-intellectual), the poster then throws in a bunch of shallow buzz phrases about how higher education isn't available to a lot of people.

And I say these are just shallow buzz phrases for two reasons. First, the poster never actually engages with this lack of access. It's just sprinkled in, like the references to Arthur C Clarke and Herodotus. (For example, no, actually, "any sufficiently MOTIVATED person" can't actually access all this information that is online. You need a stable internet connection, devices to allow you to make use of that connection, to speak or read the language those materials are published in, enough time and sleep and food and goddam shelter.)

Second, this doesn't actually have anything to do with the actual claim that the poster is supposedly defending. Remember that? Remember the position the poster is arguing for? "Any sufficiently deep enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor." How does, "some people can't go to college" support that claim, specifically?

It doesn't, which is why the poster's next paragraph instead claims that OP is arguing that "those people do not have the ability to hold themselves to a rigorous standard of learning."

Which just.

Fuck you?

Because yeah, that would be a shitty opinion to hold! And you are the only person raising it! You are explicitly making the claim - fuck, perpetrating the anti-intellectual worldview - that anyone who suggests "caring about something does not inherently equal subject matter expertise" is an elitist who thinks that everyone else, ordinary people, real Americans, are stupid.

I'm gong to be honest, this is the part of the poster's claims that made me mad enough to respond.The notes include people agreeing that academics and "experts" are actually pretty elitist, aren't they, and they deserve to be "taken down a few pegs," that suggesting that you need a baseline level of knowledge or vocabulary before you can engage deeply with a subject is "gatekeeping."

The U.S.'s institutions are crumbling as they are dismantled by people that are making these exact same arguments. There is no meaningful difference in the reasoning of the poster's argument here, and the argument that "alternative medicine" hacks who never completed their medical training have sufficient credentials to run goverment agencies, and that if you bring up their lack of credentials, well, that just proves what an elitist you are.

The "worldview" the poster does not accept - is telling you not to accept - is the idea that expertise exists at all.

And because that is an incorrect and harmful worldview, the poster has to use a bunch of rhetorical tricks to hide what they are doing. And then to sell it, they throw in a bunch of words to stir up the audience's preconceptions and biases. OP's claim (again, that enthusiasm and academic rigor are not equivalent) is "racist and imperialist." Why? Don't worry about it. Something something college is expensive and inaccessible to a lot of people. All you need to remember is that these ivory-tower academics are The Bad Thing.

*deep breath*

Anyway, knowing we need a laugh to bring the mood back up, the poster then says someone on reddit criticizing your argument is an "informal version[] of the peer-review process." Besides betraying a deep ignorance of the nature of peer-review (I guess even knowing how academic processes work is also elitist?), I think this means that the poster has to be cool with my post here, right? Because I'm just doing peer review? (Because also, just to be clear: "the academic structure of the peer review is a formalized process of the very human impulse to gleefully tell other humans when they’ve stuck their foot in their mouth." No. This is just. No.)

Next, more misstating OP's original claim. The poster says, "An institution of formal learning is not a prerequisite to pursue and absorb information," which OP already agreed with in the comments of the poster's original post.

In support of this claim that no one is arguing with, the poster than makes up a "guy at the model airplane shop who seems to know absolutely everything that has ever been known about WWII planes," and asks, "why don’t we acknowledge him as a legitimate expert?" The poster implies that this is because this guy is autistic and OP is a bigot.

But the real answer is simpler:

Unless you are referring to something you chose not to link for some reason, he's made up. He's a made up guy in your brain. And OP never said anything about him, so it's really weird for you to criticize OP for not sufficiently praising him as an expert. Fanfic isn't reality.

To the extent we are talking about real phenomenons - who do you mean by "we" and what do you mean by "acknowledge him as a legitimate expert"? There are lots of people with legitimate expertise, and in my experience, they often are recognized as such. And I don't know where you live, but outside of revenge-fantasies of conservative pundits and the people who are mislead by them, most academic experts aren't exactly exhausted and prestige and praise.

'Knowing a lot about a subject' is not the same as academic rigor. This isn't a criticism or insult to people who know a lot of things, despite your weird, self-centered hang-ups. Let me be clear here, actually: I am not an academic. I am a lawyer. I know a lot about the law in the areas I practice in. I do not practice the law "with academic rigor" because that's not really meaningful. I also like to constantly learn more about the law, including in many areas I don't practice in. I am not an expert in those areas. Just as an academic who studies the law and legal practice would not necessarily be good at actually practicing the law, my enthusiasm does not mean I have academic expertise (and my academic training is rather rusty, this many years out). This is normal? My ego is not threatened by acknowledging different kinds of expertise and knowledge exist?

And perhaps most to the point - "seems to know absolutely everything that has ever been known about WWII planes." "Seems to." An important part of academia - part of what makes it rigorous, if you will - is that you actually have to prove your expertise to other experts. They are then "recognized" as experts because there is a process the public can usually trust that they don't just "seem to" know what they are talking about. If you are talking to an amateur enthusiast - how do you know you they actually have the expertise they claim to have? Because I know of some guys who are really enthusiastic about the, claim to be experts, and have a lot of strong opinions about how they have reclaimed their Sovereign Identity by not capitalizing the letters in their name.

I agree with the poster's final paragraph. I love learning. But I can't see this as anything other than a manipulative postscript, a rhetorical trick of ending on a point of agreement and mutual enthusiasm. By a person - and I can't emphasize this enough - who refused assistance in learning and threw an enormous tantrum because someone suggested hey, maybe its a good idea to get a basic foundation of knowledge before cold-emailing experts.

[overdramaticbaddie]

Boutta rant abt my blorbo sooo spoiler warning for new Deltarune chaptersss

So.

Berdly.

We got almost NOTHING about him from the new chapters, but I think he deserves to be discussed in light of the new information.

First things first, I don't think enough people talk about the obvious parallels between him and Susie.

Both have spent a lot of time antagonizing Kris, Both sided with the "Villian" in the dark world, and used it to fulfill various fantasies of theirs (susie getting to beat up everyone there, berdly trynna build "smarttopia" or whatever) Both experienced significant character development in the dark world (unfortunately, berdly immediately backtracked as soon as he "woke up") Both cope with feelings of inadequacy by lashing out at others and trying to make themselves seem "bigger" and "cooler" than they actually are (Susie through physical intimidation and Berdly through manipulation and self-aggrandizing behavior) Both have strangely protective tendancies???? Both feel like side characters in their own story. Both are unpopular with peers and authority figures Not to mention, their weapons are EXTREMELY SIMILAR WTF

And also, something I find really interesting,

Neither of them are a part of "the three heroes" of the prophecy.

LONG-ASS PROPHECY INTERPRETATION TANGENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BERDLY:

The part of the prophecy where the three "heroes" are mentioned, when put in order, reads as follows:

"The first hero. The cage, with human soul and parts.

The second hero, the girl with hope crossed on her heart.

The third hero, the prince, alone in deepest dark.

And last ,was the girl. At last, was the girl."

While it may seem that Susie would be the second hero, especially with how she is associated with hope in chapter 4, the image that goes with that line appears to be a girl in robes, holding a sword (possibly the sword made from the thorn ring) implies noelle may have actually been the one intended to be the second hero.

The way the image of the girl holding the sword is also used with "love finds the girl", with some of these images including a small SOUL in the chest of the girl pictured. This correlates to how, in the weird route, we seem to have implanted a piece of our SOUL, and thus our control, into her. As well as the implications of "love" finding her, suggesting that the second hero will have violence thrust upon her, which happens to Noelle in the weird route.

That, plus the fact that Kris wanted to be partnered with noelle in the group project, that Susie only ended up in the dark world by pure coincidence, further suggests that Noelle was the second hero intended by the prophecy.

Also, the image that goes with the "At last was the girl" line, looks exactly like "Rude Buster", one of Susie's attacks, which she uses to defeat the titan along with Gerson at the end of chapter 4.

LONG-ASS PROPHECY INTERPRETATION TANGENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BERDLY IS OVER, NOW I WILL CONTINUE TO TALK ABT THE PROPHECY JUST WITH BERDLY NOW

Now that that's out of the way, I wanna talk about how the prophecy deals with Berdly, which I find FASCINATING.

If you're confused because you don't remember seeing anything at all relating to Berdly in the prophecy in Chapter 4, you're 100% right on the FUCKING MONEY.

He's

NOT

FUCKING

IN THERE

He's never mentioned ONCE, despite the prophecy discussing many characters and events that go beyond the main "three heroes" thing,

whether it's King's defeat, Queen's "chariots", Tenna being sliced up, Lancer saying Toothpaste boy, Asgore in asylum, fuckign JOCKINGTON GROWING A BEARD, the prophecy is littered with references to things that happen all over previous chapters.

But, the thing is, NONE of those things would have been changed if Berdly wasn't in the game.

As far as the prophecy is concerned,

Berdly doesn't exist.

This wouldn't seem too important if it weren't for the fact that he is DIRECTLY INVOLVED in the ONLY game-changing decision SO FAR.

Without him, there is no weird route.

Sure, you can choose to cancel it several times afterward, but the thing is, that's the only time you shift the route of the game. After that, you can only either double down or backtrack, not forge any new paths.

It's strange that someone who functions as the marker between to distinct paths wouldn't be mentioned in the prophecy.

So, here's a little theory of mine:

I think Berdly's the big sleeper character in Deltarune.

Think about it,

out of the main 5, (the lighteners and ralsei,) he's the one we know LEAST about. Sure, they all have mysteries attached to them, but that's part of the reason they're THERE.

Berdly so far has nothing going for him storywise besides him being an annoying fuckwad who gets his shit absolutely wrecked in the weird route.

I genuinely don't believe Toby Fox would make such a unique character who fits the themes of the game perfectly just to eat shit in an alternative route and be forgotten.

I think players are SUPPOSSED to forget him, SUPPOSED to just be like ugh it's that fuckin bird that I hate and move on.

ESPECIALLY since he gets so little screentime in the new chapters, I think Toby is lulling us into a false sense of berdly-less security, letting us think he's served his purpose in the plot.

(and Ik this is probably hard to believe, since if ur reading this ur probably in the corner of the fandom that LOVES berdly, but most Deltarune players do tend to totally dismiss him)

I think Tony Forks is gonna hit us with a berdly-shaped truck in SPECIFICALLY chapter 5, since the weird route only affects ONE THING in the light world outside of Kris and Noelle's sanity.

Berdly being at the festival.

ISTG SOMETHING'S GONNA HAPPEN WITH HIM

but yea, berdly is 100% a sleeper in the plot.

Also kerdly is canon.

[starlightbright]

RIP Ricky September they had to kill you because it would have been unrealistic to not keep you on as a companion 😔

EDIT: I've noticed some people taking this post really seriously, so to clarify: no, I don't think Ricky was literally a perfect uwu anti-racist angel. This post was mostly a joke about how he was running around doing companion shit and, most of all, how the Doctor and Ruby both thought he was a hottie. My actual feelings about Ricky are that he's a complacent white liberal. Character reading under the cut if you want an explanation.

I do think the implications of making him unplugged from the racism bubble, paralleling him with the Doctor (man who shows up with knowledge about history and technology and guides the other character through dangerous situations), and directly contrasting to Lindy (including being open to trust the Doctor without second guessing him the same way Lindy and all her friends did) are supposed to be that he wasn't like the other people there and is thus LESS racist since racism comes to be what defines their society. I've seen some people basically ask "then why'd he move to White People City?" but within the text it's actually Rich People City; the reason everyone there is white is because systemic racism financially benefits white people. Making him LESS racist is NECESSARY to giving his death any meaning - because if he definitively would have called the Doctor a slur and walked away, then the Dot killing him quickly was a mercy kill because we KNOW all the other residents are going to die in the wilderness.

THAT SAID, I also don't think he was a progressive anti-racist. Do you know what Ricky actually is? A white liberal. He might disengage from the White People Bubble, he might not be outwardly cruel to black people, but he's still surrounded by people who are and benefits from a system where ONLY WHITE PEOPLE ARE RICH. The culture might be fucked, but he still benefits from it without doing anything to actually fight it. It's like how many a white liberal will read about the history of slavery, feel sad about it, and then be uncritical of prison labor. If Ricky was meant to be progressive, there'd be something, ANYTHING in the text about how he's tried to educate his followers on their society's problems, but it got deleted. He is COMPLACENT.

That's sort of the point, I'd say, since the theme is about how priviledged white people put themselves in a bubble of people like them and choose to look away from what's wrong in society. Those people become complacent at best with no effort to actually speak out or change things. Hell, even within the text, Ricky SEES a problem others are looking away from (the slugs eating people), but only tries to fight it by making a TikTok about it and becomes complacent again, accepting that people are just going to be eaten.

So tl;dr: no, I don't think the white liberal kid literally would have been a companion. I think if you stuck him in the Ood episode, for example, he'd have shaken his head when he found out about their plight, maybe made a TikTok with sad music playing over footage of them, and then said "welp, nothing else can be done." I think it's FUNNY to imagine another companion that the Doctor and Ruby both are giggling like schoolgirls over.

Also I kind of thought he was ugly - no offense to the actor but the makeup they had him in combined with the lighting and closeups made him look way older than 27 so he gave off this uncanny "how do you do fellow kids?" look.

[onthecrescentofthehill]

it’s funny when ppl talk about the harpy omelet scene and say things like “why did he do all of that? he didn’t need to. JUST doing that for laios???” (seen these nearly verbatim on posts i’ve made.)

i don’t really get how you can hear his backstory & not understand that every decision he makes within the dungeon is fueled by a profound trauma borne out of horrific, structural negligence. of course he would do fucking anything to enact his plan? if he computes “getting in laios’s favor = proxy control of the dungeon” and he has very limited time to do so, he will jump at the chance. he’s already DIED for this.

kabru has maybe the clearest possible motivation that a character can have. he has a Protagonists Motivation, and it guides him forward in a very coherent way in the beginning of the story. things get more complicated in later acts that directly address how that motivation manifests itself/gets contradicted, bc ryoko kui is great at exploring this, but it’s still extremely present.

and as a labru fan i strongly dislike the implication i see from some ppl that his interest in laios is mostly personal or romantic (posts that range from pure joke to actual ship meta.) even when taking the “confession” at face value, where i think he was telling the truth, there’s still a lot more to it than that. i think at first kabru does see laios as a means to an end in a way that’s impersonal, partly because he tends to keep everyone in his life at arms length. but that “end” (preventing history from repeating itself) is something foundational to his psyche, and we should consider that potential sense of safety getting mixed in with his warring fascination/apprehension towards laios. he’s drawn to him for visceral reasons, and his stated motivations are so intertwined with his sense of self that untangling this push-pull is much more interesting than boilerplate Yearning, to me.

it’s just confusing when any meta or basic discussion of kabru diminishes the weight utaya has on his inner world and i’m really surprised every time i see it? like i understand that different types of meta will put other lenses on things intentionally, and in most cases i think it’s an interesting tool to work with. but it’s a massive disservice to his character to put the most foundational experience of his life on the back burner ESPECIALLY when it’s in favor of shipping. dissecting character relationships, romantic or otherwise, is at its best when you have their full personhood in mind!!