#i hate logical fallacies btw

[ladyofchroyane]

people who stan ashara and arthur dayne are odd as well. the difference is that these people are rare and usually don’t post bs about other characters while acting like their headcanons are the only truth. also, why did you have to use a logical fallacy? i hate red herrings so pick a different gotcha to use.

and yes… that’s how elia is described. and that is literally almost all we know about her. so how does this contradict my point? it’s still weird and very illogical to stan this character as fervently as her stans do when this is all we know about her.

and your last point is simply untrue. lyanna gets much more characterization than elia, has more narrative importance, and has a mini me who’s directly paralleled to her and a son running around who’s magical destinies and actions will shape the world of asoiaf.

tbh i’d love to know more about elia and i think in the next book she’ll have more narrative importance. honestly, i’m actually one of those crazy people who believes that jaqen h’ghar is the real aegon, so i think elia becoming a more fleshed out character is a very very likely possibility. i also completely believe that a lot of unknown info about the rebellion will be revealed in winds of winter so it won’t just be elia who’s more fleshed out. i am very excited for this and i am eager to see where the dornish plot goes.

now that i’ve proven that i’m not an elia anti nor a martell/dorne anti, i’d like to make it clear that i am an elia stans anti. i find it weird af for people to make whole ass stan accounts dedicated to elia, but i normally wouldn’t make a post about this odd kind of behavior and just block people like this (i love me my block button). however, i’ve lately become very annoyed by these so called elia stans, and my problem with these stans stems from the fact that half the posts they make are posts bashing rhaegar and lyanna. and tbh i don’t even care much about rhaegar and lyanna, but i adore jon, dany, and arya; and i’ve noticed that rhaegar hate goes hand in hand with dany hate and lyanna mischaracterization leads to jon and arya becoming completely mischaracterized. it’s annoying to see so i decided to post about my grievances.

to be clear, i’m neutral on elia as i don’t know enough about her to form an opinion on her. if i haven’t stated it enough i’ll state it again: her stans are the ones who piss me off. like look at that account @eliaalgae that you reblogged. i tagged my post correctly and yet this person came after me spewing shit like a bitch. i don’t even know why i can’t respond to that person who you reblogged, but it’s genuinely annoying when i tag my shit correctly and i have someone being nasty to me despite this. i’m fairly new to tumblr and this is an alt account so i don’t even know why my comments would be restricted here but it’s still annoying as fuck to see.

@eliaalgae and my question wasn’t fucking stupid you fucking donkey. sorry i don’t adore your self insert :) and ahhh yes i wanted attention from elia stans so i tagged my post as anti elia stans! you’ve caught me! god damn i’m so embarrassed!

question: how can you adore elia when she’s barely a character?

we do not know enough about this character for her to even have stans.

stanning elia is illogical at best, completely delusional and very concerning at worst.

because what even is it that is being stanned and adored? your self insert?

[zapsoda]

clarifying the actual core values of christianity in response to someone generalizing christianity as the heartless backwards prudes religion is, in fact, not an example of the no true scotsman fallacy. the individual in question was not saying that bad christians are not real christians, they were saying that bad christians are not representative of christianity as a whole. very big difference

[fugamalefica]

why r you so obsessed with that acc shitting on bellamort if ur ship is canon in books btw? weirdly, you're so defensive for a ship that was supposed to be "the one" lol

There is no 'if' here, little Rosie. My ship is based on the books and has been confirmed by the author herself multiple times. 'That account' is you and I hate your stupidity and illiteracy, so I am correcting you. The idea that you can only be defensive about something that isn't true is false. It is fallacy like all your other 'arguments'. Your attempts to undermine me psychologically are manipulative and derailing and only show that you understand nothing about human psychology. You flip the conversation away from logic and onto my emotional response, as if my feelings are proof of guilt instead of my just being human.

Also, some people are passionate and intense. We express ourselves fully. It doesn't mean we're secretly lying. It just means we care.

[prigorie]

Doing my logic project and this place is officially an Adrian Onciu hate blog

[shoot-i-messed-up]

hiiiii i'm just gonna slide on in here so i can procrastinate on my homework <3

Fic Writer Ask Game:

how many works on ao3?

lucky numberrrrr 14.

total ao3 wordcount?

124,475 (which, btw, is insane to me. i haven't written this much since liek. maybe ever)

Top 5 fics by kudos?

Nice Logical Fallacy

Hal Jordan: The Guy Who Made Superman Cry Thrice

HRT Intervention

Do I Look Like Him?

Hot and Cold (this one surprised me!)

What fandoms do you write for?

mostly Green Lantern and Superman (and them together) but I've also written a few other random ones mixed in there!

Do you respond to comments?

Slowly, but yes! I try to respond to almost all of them.

Angstiest Ending?

oh god...I don't think any of my endings are angsty, except for maybe my unfinished words, but ofc those aren't "endings". Wait never mind it's Promise to the Dark. It's definitely Promise to the Dark, no diff. That one is for the book series Poppy War though, so like...yeah it's playing in a whole different ball game than DC.

Fic with the happiest ending?

Pretty much all of my fics have happy endings? But maybe An American Alien and the Man Born Without Fear takes the cake for the happiest one. It's...very cheesy and sappy, and that was on purpose. Many of my other fics tend to end with some sort of bit or joke, so ending with Hal literally "chasing the sun" is probably the happiest ending. And you know Clark is about to start the JL, which is a very good thing.

Do you get hate?

No, and I hope i never do! (knock on wood)

Do you write smut?

I have written smut once for J'onnhal and I'm gonna be honest. It's not for me. I much prefer writing "around" sex than "about" sex, it's just much more interesting for me characterization wise...and yeah ok it's also about comfort level ofc.

Do you write crossovers?

No, and I probably won't anytime in the near future. I try not to write anything that's "too" noncompliant with canon already because I just...cringe whenever I stray too far from canon and just make up my own stuff, even though I like to read crossovers and AUs and I even pitch some in posts sometimes!

Ever had a fic stolen?

soooooo apparently ao3 just got scraped...but other than that, no.

Have you ever had a fic translated?

No, but it'd be cool as hell.

Have you ever cowritten a fic?

I've mostly just had fics beta-read, but!!! i have a Hal in Themyscira AU with @honkygay that we have co-written some (unfinished and therefore unpublished) fics for!

All-time favorite ship?

ughhhhh...hard question. I know I look like I'm gonna say superlantern, but I actually think it would be clois, despite only having written only one fic for them. It's just because no one can do it better than canon them.... (well. and jesncin's great explorations of the immigrant experience through clois) Maybe I'll write clois in the future...but I only tend to write things if I think I can do them either better or different. Idk how I could do clois different from the many versions and adaptations we've already seen...

(I have been thinking about writing a Superman fic pretending as if I was hired by DC to write an official Superman prose novel, a la Superman: American Alien or Superman Smashes the Klan, but that's a pipe dream for now...have no idea what I would do that could be better than either of those.)

WIPs you want to finish but doubt you ever will?

oh my god. Superlantern arranged marriage AU for sure. So many politics to have to figure out...but so, so tantalizing.

Writing Strengths?

Hmmm. Character voice? I've been told my character voice is pretty good, and I do agree--though if only because I tend to write only characters of whom I can "hear their voices". Unfortunately, for some characters, I haven't been able to hear their voice, so I just...can't write them. Other than character voice, I think I'm a decent hand at doing narrative theming.

Oh wait actually I think something else I'm pretty good at is keeping an even hand with all my characters, ike as in, not making any one of them a malicious asshole, even if they are being somewhat of an antagonist. Like for example, in the fifth chapter of HJTGWMSCT, a lot of different characters have reservations about Hal rejoining the JL after what happened to him, and they all have really good points and it's obvious they all do care a lot. Same for Chasing Ghosts about each of Clark's friends having reservations about him dating Spectre!Hal.

Writing Weaknesses?

I struggle with pacing a little bit... sometimes i just wanna get to the good stuff... also finishing longfics!!! ugh!!!

Thoughts on mixed language dialogue?

100% agree with Luvo about treating all lanugages with respect. My general rule of thumb, if I'm writing dialogue that's not in English (the only language I know and therefore write in), is to establish the POV character's level of fluency in the non-English language being spoken, and go from there on how to format the mixed language.

First fandom you wrote for?

Technically I think it was Sanders Sides. Not on ao3, but on this very blog lmao. many many years ago...

Favorite fic you've ever written?

God. Hands down, HJTGWMSCT. Such a compelling premise and such a fun universe to play around with in my head. (actually I've been thinking about a potential superlantern kid spin-off in that specific universe years down the line recently...ugh. so many ideas.)

tagging (no pressure!!): @pastelplastic @roboticnebula @ikibli and anyone else who wants to jump in <3

tagged by @glitter-stained!!!!

Fic Writer Ask Game:

how many works on ao3?

73!!

total ao3 wordcount?

485,903

Top 5 fics by kudos?

So, how old is that in Tim years?

On Haunting vs. Being Haunted

I will leave the water like someone about to forgive

In the Event of an Emergency

Think of Me

What fandoms do you write for?

DC: mostly Batman, but I hope to branch out!!

D20: mostly Fantasy High!!

Do you respond to comments?

Yes!!!

Angstiest Ending?

probablyyyy Deja Vu? it's meant to be a somewhat. very loosely. look this fic is very stupid and i love it a lot and its relationship to canon is extremely nebulous and it's more accurate to game changer than fantasy high now that i think about it. but it's supposed to be a Kipperlilly Copperkettle canon compliant origin story? of sorts? so angsty!!

Fic with the happiest ending?

I think I'm going to have to go with: Everyone tells me "You're fine don't be in love"!! I think it's the most joyful!!

Do you get hate?

not that i know of!!

Do you write smut?

god i hope i will someday soon. I was struck by visions of dinahbabs earlier today... trackerbees nsfw compels me... stephcass nsfw zombie au can anyone see my vision... and of course. my tragic yuri heljanet set to good luck babe... one day.......

Do you write crossovers?

this is a really good question. Does my Kipperlilly in game changer au count. does my K2 goes to other d20 worlds count. does k2 in VIP count. I do hope to write a K2 vs. Batman fic someday!!!

Ever had a fic stolen?

not that I know of!!

Have you ever had a fic translated?

No!!

Have you ever cowritten a fic?

there's several docs in the drive of a Batman magical girls au i was working on with a friend last summer, and the lovely @purrassicjet wrote a sandra lynn chapter for Skin and Soul Deep!!

All-time favorite ship?

ohhh so. so i really don't care about ships at all really. All of my caring about ships is borrowed from other people. Maybe trackerbees because i had a ton of fun writing them for my first time writing romance!!!

WIPs you want to finish but doubt you ever will?

Very Complicated Women. I posted the outline for what i want the rest of it to look like here a while ago, and i love it i love it so so so so so much but i don't know if id have a ton of fun writing it because i'd want it to be all transcript and im not super in the mood for that and don't know if i will be again? in the same vein, Wayne Family Adventures, which is my fic that was going to be a very strange unreality type thing that started off as a novelization of the wfa webcomic!!! just not sure when if ever i'll be in the mood to write a novelization of a comic!!

Writing Strengths?

I think I'm pretty good at doing dialogue!! I love thinking about what makes character voices distinct!!!

Writing Weaknesses?

action scenes action scenes action scenes. fight scenes. hate them. i need to practice them.

Thoughts on mixed language dialogue?

if this is asking about untranslated languages different than the fic's primary language being used, complicated!!! i think it's important to remember that language and how we perceive it is super important!! i think it's important to remember that sometimes, when you think you're phonetically writing out what you think of as just an accent, you're actually taking bits and pieces from a dialect that deserves to be researched more in depth so as to treat it with respect!! the line between a dialect and a language, from my understanding, can be drawn and is often used to discriminate against marginalized communities so when asked about mixed language dialogue, it's a deeper question than I think might be expected!!! and as a batman fan, you know I have to raise the question of sign language!! At the end of the day, I know very little, and think that I would probably just defer to people who know other languages, but the one thing I do know is that if there is a different language being used, it should be treated with respect!!!

First fandom you wrote for?

many years ago, Percy Jackson and the Olympians on wattpad!!

Favorite fic you've ever written?

Difficult difficult difficult. fics that have been finished and posted? Deja Vu or So, how old is that in Tim years? because they made me laugh the most when I was writing them!! not posted? The Stupid Goddamn Jack Drake Vigilante AU, which is nowhere near what I would consider done, but everything that has been written so far was only written because I could not stop laughing about it. Also, the fic I'm working on right now!! (otherwise known as B2 fic!!) mostly because i'm having so much fun writing it. like every time i work on it im just sitting here going oh my god i love writing fanfiction. I have a lot of fics and I love them all for different reasons!!!!

no pressure tagging: @the-flying-robins, @20dimensionsoftangerine, @vechter, @lisziztaken, @blackbatcass, @havendance and anyone else who wants to play!!!!!

[icyxmischief]

I honestly cannot stand the Loki fandom on tumblr anymore. This is the most toxic, hateful fandom I've encountered in a long, long time. I don't know how you've managed to stay for so long, but I've always enjoyed your content and wish you the best of luck going forward here. I don't think I've ever been so disappointed or outright ashamed of a fandom before, but this series has really brought a whole lot of ugliness out of Loki's. And it's such a shame, because it wasn't always this bad.

Friend, it makes me so sad that you feel this way. I know from negative experience in other fandom spaces what you're going through. It's really painful because we come to fandom with an earnest piece of ourselves that we want to share, project or INject, into characters who resonate with us, for any variety of reasons. This means each of us has a very personal, individual, and sometimes fever-pitched stake in how our "comfort character" is portrayed in canon.

This fandom angst derives from a couple of logical fallacies which I wanna spell out here, and from which, I hope, you can free yourself, in order to remain in a psychological space where you can still enjoy the things you love. <3 No really. I am a 38-year-old, successful professional, I have been around the block with fandom discourse and "grown-up real-world" intellectual discourse, and I am telling you, THIS is how I've "lasted this long":

1) Fallacy One: "Canon is the "most real" version of characterization." No. We don't even have to go into "Death of the Author, baybee" or Reception Theory or any of the other stuff in 20th and 21st century media crit to refute this. Simply put: you experience the media. The media exists in a wholly fictional realm anyway. The only difference is money/resources and breadth of audience. Your experience and, say, Kevin Feige's, or Kate Herron's, are all equally "real." Your Variant of the Sacred Canon (I DO think they're being that meta with the fans in the Loki series, yes), if you will, deserves to exist as much as the one Tom Hiddleston acts out on screen. You have a right to the Loki that exists in your head. 2) Fallacy Two: Seemingly opposite but often entwined with Fallacy One, as a defense/coping mechanism against Fallacy One: "My version is the 'most valid' version, and departure from my version equates lack of authenticity or effort, or, most dangerous of all, moral/ethical inferiority." No. We all have the right to the Loki in our heads. Now this one is trickier, admittedly, because the people who gravitate to characters like Loki tend to share his experience with social Othering/marginalization and trauma. That means that if you tell them "you're wrong, and stop getting in my face and being so aggressive," you could be accused (indeed, perhaps rightfully) of tone-policing someone who identifies with a marginalized group (racially, in terms of ability, in terms of gender identity or sexual orientation, etc). The best thing, therefore, for you to do is acknowledge that your readings of the "text" (here, a tv show) differ, and that you respectfully decline to discuss the matter. Even if it rankles you, don't engage. These people have a very personal stake in the media and in essence, it's kindest to let them depart to be angry in their own space.

3) Connected closely to the above, “What we condone in fiction equates what we condone in reality,” God, no. Much ink has been spilled by more eloquent writers on this, so I won’t expound. But don’t go there. Don’t fall for that. Lol. It leads only to misery. 

Habits I would encourage, to avoid Big Fandom Wank:

1) When you see content you don't like, especially spoken in an incendiary or absolutist manner, block or unfollow. Do not engage directly. Vent about it in your own space if you must, or better yet, in private, to trusted friends. If you engage, which...sometimes it IS worth it to do so, if something has real personal significance to you as a consumer of that media, then be braced for people to be rude or even abusive, because human beings, especially in internet spaces, are messy emotional creatures who leap to conclusions without gauging for nuance. There is disagreement over different and valid interpretations of content, and then there is just being unpleasant on principle.

2) See advice in Fallacy Two re avoiding tone-policing.

3) Find your people and curate your dash strictly. This can be ten people or it can be two. Make a close-knit small group in a private space for all your sharing of ideas. Make sure these are people you trust, who, when you spend time consuming the media with them, make you feel better, not worse.

4) Unfollow liberally. Block liberally. You don't owe anyone your time, energy, or, especially, happiness. People will accuse you of cowardice or "running away from a grown-up debate." Let them. It's pitiable, in perspective. They're insecure and sad and they need to say manipulative things. But you know better, don't you? You're just preserving your peace of mind.

5) If you mess up, go quiet for a while, take a break from social media, and it will blow over. I promise. Delete anon hate (and know that you can block the sender, even an anon, on Tumblr, too!).

--------

Friend, thank you for your kind words. I'm so sorry you're so sad. I hope I see you here again someday. <3

Anyone who needs a boost can reblog this advice, btw.

[ill-be-istj-if-no-one-else-is]

Peace! It's nice to meet you, fellow mbti person! I'm so glad to have stumbled upon an ISTJ who is into typology! I have a request. I typed Elsa from Frozen in a post (I'll tag you) and I argued that she is not an ISTJ. I wanted to know what you thought, particularly if I made any mistakes in understanding the ISTJ personality type. Thank you so much in advance! I hope it's not too much of a bother. I'm an INTP btw.

Hi,

I want to start out with the following: for anyone reading, do not make a habit of having me analyze your posts about fictional characters. I am happy to help you type yourself, or answer questions about MBTI. However, in case it was not clear from the fact that I have only typed fictional characters in response to direct questions, that my answers have typically been very brief, and that I’ve repeatedly directed people to blogs that specifically focus on character typing, I’m not really interested. I should note: I had fun because I love picking up my metaphorical red pen and writing “wrong” over every other sentence, but it did also take me like an hour and a half and it’s over 3 pages long, and I don’t have time to do that regularly.

With all that said, the post had sufficient issues with both basic logical argument structure (I would very strongly recommend you revisit that INTP typing of yourself and look at something with high Fe instead) as well as understanding of MBTI that, because you asked directly, I will go through said issues. I want to make it very clear: this is going to be harsh. For both that and for the length I’m putting it below a read-more such that if you were looking for a brief thumbs up or down and not for extensive criticism, you are welcome to ignore it, block me, or whatever is best for you.

Basic argument structure: you open repeatedly with the most subjective arguments - that she gives off Fi and Ni vibes and you don’t see the Si in her. This will convince no one but yourself.

This argument is also mostly focused on “other people think this, but I don’t” which I find is only useful in a process of elimination argument. We’ll get to the final typing eventually but it is generally stronger to argue in favor of what you believe and then address potential disagreement rather than the reverse; by the time you get to ISFP I’ve read so many incorrect assumptions and subjective asides that I’ve long since stopped valuing the analysis of the work.

Issues with the ISTJ argument

(note: I have, and continue to type Elsa as an ISTJ so this will be the longest section in that I’m both pointing out flaws and arguing in favor of ISTJ; the rest will be solely focused on MBTI misconceptions or logical fallacy).

While it’s true people often mistake trauma for Si, this argument seems to equate trauma with being stuck in the past (people can just be stuck in the past without trauma for whatever other reason - it’s not healthy but it does not necessarily indicate literal trauma). There is also a false opposition here: It’s absolutely valid to argue that Elsa is traumatized, but that does not preclude her having Si, merely removes one argument in favor of Si.

You define Si (gathering concrete details to understand what to expect) but don’t actually argue why Elsa doesn’t do this. I’d argue, in opposition to the statement later in this paragraph, that she does. She is aware from the past that her abilities can harm her sister. She is aware from her past that when she avoided Anna, Anna was safe. She hasn’t been happy with the “conceal don’t feel” line, but it has achieved her goals and her expectation is that she’ll hurt someone if she stops following it.

If you’re referring to an Si-Fi loop (wallowing in self-pity), it doesn’t use Te since that’s how loops work. You don’t explicitly say this is in the context of looping although you introduce looping in the second sentence, but if you are referring to a loop this is incorrect. It’s true that ISTJs are often likely to use Si (preference for familiar/existing structures) and an Fi understanding of morality to direct their energies when they wish to change something (ie, they will change things through existing channels) but the focus on speaking out about injustice here is much more in line with enneagram 1 - a very common enneatype for ISTJs and an enneatype that’s rare for any non-TJ types, but not the enneatype I’d give Elsa nor an inherent ISTJ trait itself.

The part about self-discipline is mixed - a lot of ISTJs are very disciplined in certain areas (particularly professional/familial) but can neglect the self (not getting enough exercise/not eating well, not addressing burnout or more emotional issues) and I’d argue again, Elsa shows this: she’s not addressing the fact that she’s lonely and miserable, but she’s highly disciplined with regards to concealing her abilities and avoiding Anna even though it’s the very thing making her lonely and miserable.

I don’t necessarily think Let It Go is indicative of an Ne grip, but one can make changes outside of a grip, so this isn’t a useful argument, as it argues why an Ne grip is wrong, not why ISTJ is wrong - I would merely argue she’s not gripping at that time. Which is a general issue here: the argument you provide in this paragraph isn’t arguing against ISTJ, it’s arguing against other people’s arguments for ISTJ, which is an important distinction.

The final paragraph of the ISTJ section has numerous issues: ISTJs are not rebellious. They are not as resistant to change as stereotypes indicate, but even a healthier version of ISTJ Elsa would be unlikely to rebel and rather try to understand her parents’ argument, research other options, or look for a way to gain control over her powers while still working within the normal hierarchy. I addressed self-discipline (I should add: I don’t think a child/young woman having difficulty controlling magical powers with no training is an argument against self-discipline; my argument for self-discipline is that she stays in her room and away from her sister despite clearly hating it). It is also, to be blunt, mind-boggling that you (correctly) argue that trauma responses are not inherently Si but then refer to obsessive-compulsive behaviors as Si when that’s also a medical disorder completely divorced from the MBTI framework. Finally, her continuing to follow an order from her parents after they die is first, quite literally the definition of self-discipline (she’s the queen; no one else is going to discipline her for it, after all) and second, entirely in line with Si (this is what she has always done and it’s not great but it works) and is, arguably, if not medically obsessive-compulsive, an obsessive need to follow a compulsion. To be clear: this isn’t healthy ISTJ behavior, but since you’ve acknowledged grips and loops here I think an unhealthy interpretation of the type is very much on the table. You say her behavior is more in line with F types; it’s not and you don’t explain why.

If I may it seems as though, much in line with the argument here being against other arguments but ultimately not debunking the typing, your arguments against MBTI stereotypes focus on what’s incorrect but they tend to merely swing the pendulum to the opposite side (eg, that ISTJs are likely to rebel, in opposition to the stereotype that they’d mindlessly follow orders) rather than find the more nuanced middle ground of how people of a type or with a certain function behave.

Issues with the INFJ and INFP sections:

Ne users can and frequently do go out into the world; simply because Ne can be engaged without external physical stimulation doesn’t mean it never is. I’m also not really a fan of reading being classified as a strictly introverted pursuit; that’s falling into a pretty significant stereotype trap. Going out and exploring is a thing anyone can do but if anything I’d either associate that more strongly with high sensing (either Si or Se) or with extroversion. 

My biggest issue here is the implication that searching for a meaning for existence or a purpose is in itself an indicator of Ni. This is just the human condition. If you’re going to argue that Si users are driven to rebel against injustice I don’t see how you can miss that that might in turn be driven by a belief that this is their purpose. Perhaps Si-Ne users aren’t as invested in having a single purpose, but wondering why you are on this earth and what it is you are here to do is just being a person, and to be blunter than I have been, I am struggling to understand how there has been so much effort made earlier to push away from stereotypes to the point of overcompensation in the opposite direction and then when it comes to the idea that only Ni users have a desire for meaning in life you just accept it without question.

Issues with the ISFP section:

At this point I’ve probably covered most of them though I’d like to point out that I don’t think there was an argument ever made explicitly for introversion; while the structure of the earlier arguments and focus on debunking was, as stated, flawed, I would at least round it out by eliminating ESFP as an option.

The argument here rests heavily on Let it Go, which is interesting because most of the terrible arguments for Elsa being an intuitive also rested squarely on that same brief if admittedly pivotal section of a full movie; in attempting to differentiate itself from those arguments it has in fact replicated the most significant flaws. Anyway, I’ve addressed that I don’t personally think Let it Go being indicative of a grip is how I’d argue for ISTJ, so that becomes invalid; I’ve tried to focus more on issues with logic MBTI than the contents of the movie but I’d add that “she was happy” is open to interpretation and her emotional state was probably fairly complicated. Relieved, sure, but she’s still ultimately isolated. (Also while mentally singing Let it Go, I realized that here’s that rebellion you were asking for in the ISTJ section).

You also outright say that when Elsa tries to reassert control it’s through Te. Yeah. That’s what a high Te user does. An ISTJ in a grip would indeed use Ne, but in quite literally any other circumstance (looping or just existing as an ISTJ not in a grip or loop) would reassert control via Te, so again, your argument does not sufficiently eliminate that Elsa is an ISTJ, just that she’s not a gripping ISTJ, which I’d agree with. 

“She acts out when she is stressed and makes bad decisions” is also the human condition (and why I’ve frequently on my blog argued very strongly against typing via stress behaviors, because in the end most people...act out and make bad decisions when stressed), so this isn’t useful as an argument for anything.

In conclusion: multiple misconceptions about Ni and Si; no argument that I could find presented for high Fi, just Fi in general; inconsistency regarding whether or not Elsa rebels, and an overall reliance not on making a new argument but on arguing why other arguments were wrong. Given the title of the post you asked me to analyze I have to (admittedly this is extremely cynical of me) wonder if there was an underlying goal to come up with a typing that was different from commonly accepted arguments, rather than to simply type for its own sake. 

[mc-slowwalker]

I am curious how you have parasocial beef with hasan. Is it the way he’s known for yelling at his twitch chat in order to get them in line when they get too unruly?

No I think more streamers should yell at their chats actually I’m a mc twitch stream enjoyer these chats SUCK

It’s more the pattern of casual ableism from him? And I’m sure that he’d call me a neoliberal or whatever for saying that but I still think it’s important to talk about. The specific thing that prompted that post was him watching nancy pelosi act a fool and then he went on to talk about how he hates that “they can’t string two sentences together” and being upset that democratic political figures trip over their words and stutter a lot. Someone in the chat called him ableist which prompted him to go on a rant about how he is ableist when it comes to people in power and referenced one of the american presidents who had Alzheimer’s. This reaction was pretty extreme and comparing having difficultly speaking in public to a person with a life altering neurological disease is just straight up a bad comparison. He has a point there are certain jobs that can’t/shouldn’t be done but then you start to argue about personal freedoms vs general freedoms. That’s not what this is about though. He uses a logical fallacy to argue his point, which may be effective for some but overall is a detriment to his argument. Instead of attacking the argument he doesn’t like (rightfully so btw fuck rich people) he’s attacking them personally and their traits. He is just expressing annoyance at having difficultly understanding them, but he puts this out as a conclusion that public speakers shouldn’t have issues speaking in public. To some extent I agree again. Donald trump and george w bush were huge mistakes those dudes should have never been put in the positions of power they were in. They were bad public speakers, but people like joe biden and nancy pelosi are just not that great at speaking, not so much focused on the public part. Nancy pelosi was tripping over her words because she was lying out her ass, but the generalization that people who aren’t good at speaking shouldn’t be in public speaking and/or hold positions of power is entirely unhelpful. If it was just this I’d probably look over it, but I have the prior knowledge that he said the r slur (which someone pointed out that it could have been a long time ago when that was normalized but I don’t know when this happened) and a different person pointed out that he’s never apologized for it. I don’t need a public apology if the person have actively phased the word out of their vocabulary like hasan has done, but I’ve seen occasions when him saying that has been brought up and he’s been fairly dismissive of it

I don’t think hasan is a bad person and I know he’s pretty smart. Someone pointed out to me (in dms again) that hasan is more of a big picture guy. That makes sense and I do commend him for that, I just think that making the world a better place starts at home with you. I’m sure he’s nice to the people around him, but when arguing with someone it’s important that you respect them. If you don’t respect the person you’re arguing with, you shouldn’t be arguing with them because they’re just not worth your time. If you don’t respect your opponent they for sure won’t respect you. This is how I was taught to argue anyways

I’ve talked to a few people in dms and learned that hasan does have ADHD. I do as well and I think there’s for sure a conversation to be had there about ableism in adhd people. ADHD is fairly accepted to a point, it’s treated as cant sit still disease by the majority of the population while other mental illnesses are demonized heavily. ADHD and ASD have so so much in common yet Autism is heavily demonized while adhd is not. It’s easy for a lot of adhd people to fall into “I’m weird but others are more weird” because the desire to be neurotypical is strong. It makes sense, you want to be like your peers, but this can lead to a sort of entitlement that allows you to be ableist against other neurodivergent people. To be honest, I don’t know if this is what is happening to hasanabi, this is more of a general observation if anything. Honestly I could write an essay on a lot of this stuff and I may, I just feel weird sharing it because sharing stuff I’m passionate about is allowing a vulnerability that I’m still working with myself to be okay with

[good-news-every-1]

You know what I really love about logical argumentation? People who are unable to do so will show it so freely.

Calling your idiocy "Watsonian" does not make it any less idiotic

The part where you claim Bucky would be Steve’s’ “brother” is especially interesting. So you need to make up a false family relation to make Steve such a poor person but calling for tony to murder his real child is somehow a different matter? That’s telling on how objective you are.

The point wasn’t about sacrificing Bucky, btw. It was about Steve never telling Tony about his parents murder in a controlled situation. He admits having known, so him not telling is not even about Bucky, but the fact he simply was hiding things from Tony nobody should hide only because it made his life easier.

But since you already proved you a) cannot read or argue like a responsible adult, I see little reason to throw away my free time to point all the logical fallacies you committed up there. Especially the Zola and fascism mentioned fall under this wide category.

And btw, stop tagging me in posts that have no connection to me. If you want to incite hate against me or cry not everyone is sooo in love with Steve do it how normal people do and link the post. Or ask yourself if Reddit and 4chan aren’t the more fitting environment for being butthurt.

One claim I often see Tony fans making is that Steve was being selfish for not "considering children born during the Snap" in the team's desire to bring everybody back.

This is obviously a form of emotional blackmail After all- how could *anybody* want to erase *billions* of children?

Well, this claim is wrong for a number of reasons

1: There is no evidence of large-scale births or an increasing birth rate during the Snap. Tony fans often say that there must have been millions and milions of children born during the Snap, but this makes no sense because, as a general rule humans do not simply "get over" losing their entire family an "move on".

Even losing one child can be an emotional blow that person never recovers from. Clint Barton lost all 3 of his children, and we know he did not simply "move on" and start a new family.

People do not simply recover from such things in a few years and create new families. It almost never happens.

Furthermore, population dynamics come to play: some planets lost as much as 3/4 of their population due to Thanos pre-Snap genocides.

Even for those who lost "only" half though this would mean half of all birthing females and existing children snapped.

Fewer birthing females means..... a lower birth rate. Also take account of things like infertility and the fact that some women who lost thier children would have been beyond childbearing age: notable case - Queen Ramonda.

Even assuming people were interested in relationships and reproduction (and most were not) the birth rate during the Snap would have been expontentially lower then it was before.

Real life disasters and catastrophes also reveal that it takes a long time for the population to recover. The Black Death killed 1/3 to 1/2 of the population of Europe in the Middle Ages- and it took something along the lines of 3 to 4 centuries for the population to reach the level that it had been before the plague struck.

Literally: it can take HUNDREDS of years for the population to recover. The idea that the world would have returned to normal after only 5 years is ludicrous.

2: The children killed by the Snap.

Half of the human race were snapped. This would have included children. Potentially hundeds of millions of children were killed by the Snap. This is far more than the number who who have been born during the Snap.

There's another issue however: many children would have died after the Snap.

Sick children whose parents or doctors were snapped and were unable to get the medical treatment they needed

Young children whose parents were snapped would have died within a few days if nobody found them.

Children in poorer countries would have been the first to succumb to things like famines and food shortages caused by the Snap.

However, children in rich countries would have followed. Food shortages and the breakdown of intractructure would have caused problems witht the availability of food and medical supplies. Diseases would have become more common without the medicines to keep them in check, and poor sanitation.

In other words, potentiallly hundreds of millions more children would have died after the Snap in addition to those who had been Snappped.

None of those children would have been bought back by Bruce's Snap in Endgame. They would have stayed dead. All because of Tony's selfish insistence that he "didn't change anything from the last 5 years".

So, no matter how Tony fans want to try and twist things: Tony Stark was quite prepared to sacrifice *hundreds of millions* if not billions of children for the sake of his desire to preserve his personal paradise.

He did not, in fact, "save everybody" at all. He saved only those bought back after the Snap and ... not really even them as they had to contend with years of social and economic problems.

You know what the most interesting irony of it all is though? Tony fucked over all those people for nothing. Pepper was already pregnant before the Snap, so reversing it would not have erased Morgan anyway.

[solarpunkvegan]

Please cite your sources. Listen, I believe you, and if you're wrong, it's most likely because you believe it yourself. Some people do intentionally lie, of course, but I don't believe it's the majority.

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Most people are ignorant not stupid, meaning they lack knowledge, not the ability to understand that knowledge. We thought the internet age would bring about a second enlightenment because everyone would have access to knowledge. But then disinformation, misinformation, and lies pervaded it.

When you try to teach me sometime new I didn't know, I'm excited, I love learning. I trust that you probably aren't out to lie to me. But if we don't cite our sources, how can we ever stave off our post-truth age where facts are meaningless?

I know you're busy, I know it's not your "job" to do the research for others. But when there's too much info out there it becomes confusing and overwhelming. If you want to educate you need to cite sources, even if you find that people refuse to click on them, which happens to me a lot. At least you've done your part. The knowledge is right there at their fingertips, if they choose not to click it, they know they're choosing to not listen to your side. If you cite sources, even if no one clicks them, it appears to anyone looking like you've done your research, which you have, and it changes the way they look at your content. The person you're talking to might refuse to listen, but you've still planted a seed. Anyone else watching sees that you not only were calm, logical, kind, and posted sources, but if they click the sources themselves they can see that the person arguing against you didn't bother to click the sources themselves.

Yes, people have said to me, literally, "I can just post an opposite source!" All. The. Time.

And yes, when I nicely asked one of them to post their source they blocked me. (BTW, this was about masks and was with another animal rights activist, someone who's been vegan for over a decade and is over 40 years old. The source I posted was from Dr. Greger, a famous plant-based doctor who donates all his proceeds from book sales and speaking tours to charity, has a free app and website with no ads or corporate sponsors that runs on donations and volunteers. He doesn't sell any pills, diet fads, scams, or other products besides some cute t-shirts that also go into the site maintenance.)

In blocking me she probably also removed my comments which is not ideal. That's what makes Tumblr great in some respects, when they block me they can't delete what I've said. Anyone watching will see what has occurred: one person was calm, kind, and posted sources, the other was angry, mean, and then blocked them. YouTube comments are the same way, the person who made the video can erase comments or turn them off, but they usually don't want to because comments drive the alogoritm and get the video more views. So if we have debates about veganism in the comments of vegan videos we do 3 things:

Boost the video, using the algorithm to our advantage.

Have a debate with someone and potentially change their mind.

Let others see us being calm, logical, rational, kind, and posting credible sources.

Plant seeds for whoever sees any of this, including those we debate with.

I need to stop doing this type of activism myself as it's not good for my mental health and it distracts me from work I think I could do more good with, my YouTube videos and art. It can be grating, it can take a toll, but so can any activism. It may seem like "slacktivism" but if you are someone with less options for activism than others it could be ideal. Not everyone can participate in all forms of activism and different kinds are good for different people. If the way you want to do activism is by opening a vegan bakery, or making vegan art, or donating to vegan organizations, signing petitions, sharing things on social media, etc. all are helpful. But in all endeavors it's best to stay calm, kind, respectful, and to post links to sources and quote those sources too. If this is something you struggle with that's ok, this type of activism may not be for you. If talking to people stresses you out, raises your anxiety, or if you have a hard time staying calm, then that's ok, maybe just do something else with your time and energy.

But if you are going to post, try to make those posts kind and informative. That doesn't mean never being blunt, or not using certain words, or not calling it like it is. It simply means not using ad hominem attacks, attacking people's personality, ridiculing their beliefs, culture, or religion, bringing up things that have nothing to do with the debate at hand, cursing, calling people stupid, calling people "brainwashed" or "hypocrites" or "sheep", focusing on their looks, being ableist, fatphobic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-neurodivergent, etc. Not only is none of that necessary to help the animals, I think it actively makes our job harder and hurts the movement overall. Shame and guilt doesn't work. Negative reinforcement works much less effectively than positive reinforcement. Being cruel to others makes people hate us as a group. Of course that's not fair or justified or right, but it's the way it is. Humans always lump people into categories and then make assumptions based on them. That's how our brains work, sadly. We're all biased. We all experience some cognitive dissonance sometimes. We all judge ourselves and others. But we can work to change that and it starts with you every time you're kind instead of cruel.

Instead of being cruel towards humans and asking them to be kind to animals, we should be kind to humans and ask them to extend that kindness to animals.

You may say "that's some kumbaya bullshit, the real world doesn't work like that" but for starters, that sounds a lot like the argument:

"the world isn't fair, get used to it" that we hear about capitalism. We can choose to change the world to make it fair, or hurt each other because we assume it never can be. The world is cruel because we are all cruel, to some extent. (Yes, some are crueler than others and use their power over others to do cruel things. Yes, some people cause much more harm than others.) We can work to change that to make it kind, instead of assuming it always will be unkind.

And secondly, I believe in being kind to everyone because to me, it's the right thing to do. BUT I also believe it is the most effective praxis when trying to change minds. It's not just about what makes me feel good as some silly hippy or whatever you want to say. No, it's also what I truly believe we need. Based on all the evidence I have absorbed over the years, this is the radical paradigm shift I think we need. (I could be wrong, I'm always learning and my mind is open to being changed.) Our world is based on cruelty. Don't you want to oppose that? And don't you want to "be the change you wish to see"? Doesn't it start with you? If you don't believe the fallacy that "one person can't change anything" then aren't you one person who can change things? We can't control other people. We can't force them to have compassion for others. But we can have compassion ourselves. Isn't that what personal responsibility is about? How do you want to make others feel? What do you want to create in the world? What do you want to add to the human story? You get to decide everyday.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

I just found your blog a few days ago, but honestly I have to applaud you for having the courage to keep doing this. I imagine that there must be at least a few angry believers in your asks or dms, so keep doing what your doing 👍

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Out of the drama that has happened over the last couple of weeks, what has been most noteworthy to me is not so much “hate” as just really pathetic attempts at insults in lieu of an actual point.

I’ve been called a “boomer” - whatever that’s supposed to even mean to me(*) - and a literal swastika-tattooed Nazi - since valuing evidence is apparently a racist trait, given apparently nobody but white people can find or use it, and everybody else uses “other ways of knowing” (aka “faith”). Which is both racist in itself, and kind of ironic given Hitler’s Xtian beliefs (and weird to witness CRT and religion aligned under a common banner of anti-evidence).

“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” - Sam Harris

I’ve used the “Your Logical Fallacy is: Ad Hominem” link more times recently than I can recall ever having before.

The takeaway appears to be either that they have no valid argument to make, or if they do, they don’t care enough to make it. The result is resorting to laughable attempts at insults, and little reason to pay them any mind.

* EDIT: It’s like accusing someone of being born in March, or on a Thursday, or in a country starting with “A”. It has what to do with anything? Aside from a convenient excuse to ignore valid points and still claim victory. BTW, not that it even matters, but I was born to baby boomers.

[emanation-aura]

Much obliged. As requested, a long and unhinged rant about why SHENHE AND YAE share CORAL DEFENDERS, SHINOBU AND HEIZOU use the damned RUIN SERPENT, MIKA is somehow in SUMERU, and much more.

(Be aware that I am just going to ignore release order because I want to make the boss material usage satisfying and don't care about the chronological order these characters released in.)

The Vishaps

First of all: what the actual fuck do either two characters have in common with the Dragonheirs?

"Shenhe fought Beisht in the Archon Quest Interlude 'The Crane Returns Upon the Wind', and it rewards Dragonheir's False Fin, so naturally she should use it—" NO. Logical fallacy. First of all, the Coral Defenders are explicitly Vishaps, and the Fin is 'a piece of biological tissue' found after defeating them. While we cannot actually confirm that Beisht isn't a Vishap, she doesn't look the part— like Osial before her, they both take the look of Hydro elemental god rather than adapting Dragonheirs/Vishaps (and you'd think Osial + wife being Vishap would be a bigger plot point if true). Anyway, why should a Fin that doesn't belong to Beisht be used as Shenhe's ascension material? Not only is Beisht a one-time boss in permanent game content, the Fin she gives for Shenhe does not even have any lore connection to her or Shenhe. The entire thing makes zero sense apart from Enkanomiya and Shenhe releasing at the same time. Ditto with Yae; you're telling me that Yae Miko uses Enkanomiya mats while someone like Kokomi doesn't?

(Btw, 'False Fin' explicitly refers to the fact that the appendage is not a fin and not 'this isn't a Dragonheir fin'.)

The only possible explanation is that Shenhe (Cryo) and Yae (Electro) compliment the Rimebiter and Bolteater Vishaps, which still doesn't make sense to me because other dual-element bosses don't have matching pairs; take Maguu Kenki, whose characters are Kazuha and Sayu despite using both Anemo and Cryo.

Most characters generally follow a trend with their boss drop of choice— mostly tied to element, like the Regisvines and Hypostases, or otherwise with pieces of lore that mirror or reflect the character's traits or quirks. And, most of the time, they stick to the same region as their nation, except in special cases like the Mond-Liyue codependency from early-game.

Conclusion: move Yae to Thundering Manifestation and complete the toxic Inazuma Electro OT3 with Sara and Raiden. Move Shenhe to the Cryo Hypostasis, which is criminally underused anyhow, and let her join Eula and Aloy and actually get people to go to Dragonspine again. Then delete this boss. (If people are screaming new region expansions need new bosses, then throw Kokomi at this, divert Ayato to the PMA, and then delete the Hydro Hypostasis. However, as the Hypostases are elemental beings we're much more likely to need to keep all seven of their variations around for some future lore development, so this is why I'd much rather delete the Vishap boss.)

That Damned Serpent

Do you know how angry this makes me? We all hate fighting the Ruin Serpent, but it is actively worse that the three characters that use it are Shinobu, Heizou, and Yelan, only one of which is native to Liyue, and Heizou doesn't have a single connection to this boss element and region-wise.

The only one of these that should plausibly even keep using the Ruin Serpent is Yelan, because she is a) Liyuen and b) deeply connected to the Chasm. No elemental connection is whatever in this case because it's a mechanical boss; Aeonblight Drake accommodating Wanderer and Nilou, for example.

Shinobu at least has plausible deniability to use the Ruin Serpent because of the events of the Archon Quest Interlude Perilous Trail (I'm starting to think Shenhe and Shinobu's implausible boss placements are due to them featuring in interludes). But there's nothing connecting Shinobu and the Serpent in a worthwhile way, and hey, guess what, if you wanted to have a boss for 'maverick' Inazuman characters, the Perpetual Mechanical Array exists!

(This is also a side argument to why Ayaka should not be using Perpetual Heart, because this is a Khaenri'ahn Hypostasis and it clashes with Ayaka's traditional ethos in every single way. Hey, on the topic of 'traditional swordwork' and 'dual-element bosses somehow getting dual-element character dependents', guess what Cryo sword-using boss exists in Inazuma? That's right, the Maguu Kenki! Both it and the PMA embody the concept of "abandoning the biological form for a stronger, mechanical form" as literally stated in both descriptions, so it's not like Ayaka loses any symbolism by switching from one to the other, also since both bosses also drop their hearts (Perpetual Heart and Marionette Core). It would also make far more sense to pair the foremost swordsmen/women of Inazuma against a sword puppet based on the work of Iwakura Michihiro, famous duellist of Inazuma.)

With that, we therefore take PMA to be the maverick boss of Inazuma for the un-traditional, non-sword-wielding characters (just like how the PMA is an unnatural mechanical imitation of the bionic Hypostasis lifeform): we move in Sayu from Maguu Kenki, keep Gorou or delegate him to Golden Wolflord, and finally we get to Shinobu and Heizou, who both are standouts in Inazuman society for their defiance of gender social roles and unique outlooks. Then delete this thing. I don't care if the Chasm needs a boss; this is not it.

Yelan, meanwhile, can join the Hydro Hypostasis. Bonus: if we boot Kokomi to the Coral Defenders or improved her goddamn strategist characterisation, we could have every single user of the Dew of Repudiation be an incredibly shady and suspicious Hydro user, which would be a perfect bowtie on top of fixing Inazuma.

Conclusion:

The Worst Thing to Ever Grace the Spiral Abyss

"Ok, so this is a rare Anemo boss that's not the Hypostasis, so we should use it for Anemo characters—" WRONG. Have Alhaitham, Dendro scholar of the forests, and Mika, Cryo and Mondstadt explorer who has nothing to do with Sumeru. This is especially sinful because of Mika, who was evidently only shoved at the Wenut because they released at a similar time. Let's try fix this.

We have two cases here: either delete this awful abomination, or keep it. In both cases we want to remove Alhaitham and Mika because their use of this boss' materials makes no goddamn sense; both the Setekh Wenut and its Pseudo-Stamens meta-wise are discussions on the erosion of the original species of Teyvat, of a "better and more prosperous time" that was lost to the sands of time, ultimately because they are mini-reflections of Apep and her lore, being colonised into oblivion by the Usurper.

So Alhaitham and Mika don't fit this. Mika is an easy fix: throw him at the Cryo Regisvine. It's a plain answer, but it's where all the Mond-Liyue early-game Cryo ones go, and the Regisvine is also located in Mondstadt and it's been so long since it's gotten a character that uses its mat that one more won't upset the balance (in fact, if we anachronistically remove Ganyu from the Cryo Regisvine and place her with the Primo Geovishap which all the adepti seem to use, it will still perfectly balance it out with the Pyro Regisvine).

Alhaitham is harder, though, because his MO doesn't fit Jadeplume Terrorshroom (Tighnari-and-Collei 'Forest Ranger Fungi style' exclusive) or the Dendro Hypostasis (Nahida-Kaveh 'closest to true wisdom style' with the cute little addition of Yaoyao). We could, of course, just put him with the Dendro Hypostasis anyway like how every early-game Electro was stuck with theirs.

Alternatively, we could place him with the Aeonblight Drake. This is not initially an obvious choice, but a close eye reveals that it is the 'maverick boss' of Sumeru where all the misfits go (see Layla, Nilou, and Wanderer). And while Alhaitham is not really a misfit on the surface, he fits the theming of the Aeonblight Drake: its entire schtick, similar to the PMA and Khaenri'ahn robots as a whole, is a 'perpetual energy source' and 'reaching for heights mortals should not achieve' (i.e. forbidden knowledge in lowercase). Alhaitham's thirst for knowledge, combined with his actions in the Sumeru Archon Quest, can suit this far more than the Setekh Wenut.

Now, if we have to keep the Wenut for some godforsaken reason, there's also an easy fix: let Wanderer use Wenut mats. He is both Anemo and embodies the "eroded past" theming of the Wenut perfectly. The only hurdle is that the Wenut released in 3.4 and Wanderer in 3.3, but as I've already stated, I don't care about time.

(You could also put Faruzan with the Wenut for the exact same reasons as Wanderer, down to her "eroded past" backstory. This, however, hinges on whether you think she's more closely tied to mechanical habits (ASIMON) or her 100-year crisis (Wenut). It makes no difference to me either way.)

Conclusion:

(aside: it is also pathetically easy to delete the Electro Regisvine from Sumeru. Move Cyno to ASIMON for his desert origins, as that seems to be the default 'desert' boss, and move Dori to Aeonblight Drake.)

Miscellaneous Changes

On the topic of Baizhu and Kirara, which started this post: delete the Iniquitous Baptist, or make it a quest-exclusive fight like Beisht was, for Search in the Algae Sea. I acknowledge that this removes some of the connectivity in Narzissenkreuz lore between the Rene-and-Jakob expedition in Sumeru and Jakob eventually turning into an Iniquitous Baptist, but there is really no reason to make it a world boss (or somehow insert it as a one-time boss in the 3.6 world quest as well, which could lay the foundations for the eventual fight with Jakob.)

Now, where to put Baizhu and Kirara? Jadeplume Terroshroom and Thundering Manifestation respectively, perhaps, but if we carry along the assumption of completely ignoring the release dates of characters, it makes far more sense for Baizhu to use Solitary Suanni, which doesn't match him elementally but is richer lore-wise for his connection via Changsheng to Chenyu Vale. Meanwhile, I see no reason why Kirara can't use Jadeplume Terrorshroom for the beast and wild connections.

Now, in Fontaine, there is also no reason why the Millennial Pearl Seahorse and Emperor of Fire and Iron need to exist. The EFI only services Lyney and Gaming, the latter of which should really also use Solitary Suanni via Chenyu connections, and the former can easily switch to Coppelius to better match his siblings (Lynette - Coppelia and Freminet - Coppelius). Lyney is even Pneuma-aligned, matching Coppelius. In particular, I feel as though the description of Coppelius' drop also matches Lyney on a personal level:

Coppelius's dance will not stop. He will continue whirling till the bell tolls.

This is Lyney's eventual role one day, since he will have to do whatever is necessary to succeed Arlecchino and manage the House of the Hearth. He will have to do whatever it takes.

The Millennial Pearl Seahorse currently is used by Neuvillette and Chevreuse. Neuvillette's case is lore-linked rather than by element: the Seahorse, alongside EFI, emerges from the Fontemer Aberrant War as a victor, and is implied to have caused 'the first diluvian period', perfectly coinciding with Neuvillette's Hydro Dragon lore and theming. I don't have so much of a problem keeping the Seahorse, but to reduce bloat, it could work to move Neuvillette to Hydro Tulpa (ignoring release dates, obviously) and Chevreuse to Prototype Cal. Breguet. Even if Chevreuse can be tentatively connected to the Seahorse by her kit Pyro + Electro -> Overload, she makes more sense with Breguet: used by Wriothesley and Charlotte before her, she'd also fit in with the 'mechanical' theming (Wriothesley - gauntlets, Charlotte - Monsieur Verite, AKA her camera, Chevreuse - her musket).

Neuvillette with Hydro Tulpa seems strange on the surface since the material is Water that Failed to Transcend, both relating to Rene (who is a corrupted version of this boss) and Furina (who is a fake Archon), but I also find it relatively easy to justify, even better than the Seahorse. Even though Neuvillette does 'transcend' in the end of the AQ thanks to Focalors' sacrifice, he is initially born as a Hydro Dragon reincarnation without the power or Authority originally due to him, therefore narratively making him somewhat similar to Furina— both people who are taking up positions without full authority. However, remember that boss drops are Character Ascension Materials, and Neuvillette's final "Conclusion" ascension voiceline explicitly states that he has regained his full power; in addition to this, the Hydro Tulpa as revealed in the Narzissenkreuz Quest is an agglomerisation of water with "countless (human) wills dissolved in water". It is a collection of human will. And Neuvillette's entire reason why he was hired as Iudex was to witness and learn to care for/love humanity, as evidenced by how he decides, in the end, to forgive humanity (as created by Egeria) with the force of his restored Authority, and believing in their will. Therefore, Neuvillette using the Hydro Tulpa, a collection of human wills that attempting to Transcend, coincides with this path perfectly: except he succeeds in Transcending with Focalors' sacrifice.

Conclusion:

This is about the majority of things I could say; if I had the will I could also rant about local specialties (hello Thoma why are you the only person who uses Tsurumi mushrooms?).

(Broke: Neuvillette should use Hydro Tulpa materials Woke: Neuvillette should use Setekh Wenut)

Every day I wake up on this forsaken earth and remember that Baizhu and Kirara use Iniquitous Baptist boss drops and despair.

Yes, 3.6, we needed a new abyss boss for plot reasons, I understand. Let's assign it to the doctor from Liyue and the Inazuman courier cat nekomata and never look at it again.

This is nearly as sinful as Alhaitham and Mika using Setekh Wenut materials, but I digress.

[romantichopelessly]

So he reckons humans came from aliens and like. That’s what the bible describes. So humans were the chattle slaves of aliens. And that the “garden of eden” in the bible was the mother ship. And they put us on earth for some reason. And they’ve hung around to like supervise us and they’ve parked their ship over australia. And the exhaust fumes of the ship is why Australia is so hot. That’s like a fraction of what he believes it’s W I L D

Wow... that is... A LOT to unpack lol

First of all?? I don’t know where in the Bible he would have gotten humans as the cattle of aliens?? It says that God made man to name the animals, and made man in his image, etc. Man was always in control (under God).

This is also a huge thing I HATE about so many conspiracy theorists. They always come at you first with their idea (the earth is flat, the moon landing was faked, vaccines don’t work, etc.) and THEN give you the evidence!!! That’s a complete fallacy of logic!!! They’re setting you up to believe what they want you to believe by saying “Doesn’t all of this look like it supports what I just said?” Instead of offering facts and letting an educated individual draw a conclusion, because in fact, the “evidence” that they pull is often unconnected and could be otherwise explained, which you could easily tell if you weren’t distracted at first by them saying lizard people run the government!!!

(This isn’t aimed at you btw promise)

Also!! Fun fact, for over a decade, the hole in the ozone layer was directly over Australia, and that’s why it was so incredibly hot. (Also why they have such high skin cancer rates) ((Indoor tanning is also a reason))

[transienturl]

After writing everything below, I felt like I should add a foreword of some kind describing what it’s about to get you not to skip it on account of it being 1200 words. I don’t really have anything though, besides “I liked it a lot and it describes my brain, and maybe it’ll make you think about yours.”

------

There's a thought I've had a number of times but haven't yet tried to talk about or write out about, like... the ways in which people come up with morals? I'm sure this is pretty basic-level psychology and ethics stuff, but I haven't taken any classes of that sort, so here we are. It goes something like this (and the point is at the end, btw):

When we have disagreements with other people about fundamental moral beliefs, we have to understand it in one of fairly few ways, right? Like, either (1) the other person is just evil, or (2) they're misguided or have made an error but ultimately have the right values (or at least the ones I have), or (3) through their experiences they've come to differ in fundamental beliefs from me and their argument is, in that lens, totally consistent. Right? If you're going to engage at all in a disagreement, you have to pick or come to understand one or more of these (or, I guess, you go with the first one by default.)

So you kind of have to have some kind of mental model of how people think of the world and come to have opinions, so you can take a guess which part of the model is causing the disagreement. In more plain terms, when it really matters, you need to know what caused the other person to be wrong, yeah? Like when the other person is like, "we need to deport all redheads" or "my kid shouldn't be treated for this collapsed lung" or whatever.

And the first obvious distinction to make is like, "values" vs. all the other stuff that's situational and on top of them. Like a value could be fairness or loyalty or hard work being rewarded or something something family or everyone having a say or selflessness being good or the reduction of human or animal suffering or, I dunno, insert stuff about faith. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but my working theory is that values are the stuff you feel like everyone reasonably ought to share (even though you know not everyone does)? Again, I'm sure there's a chapter in a textbook about this. So by argument (2), all the other stuff is just disagreements about the right way to get to the same fundamental place, like how different people would "fairly" split a cake different ways, or how different experiences of religion would lead groups to differ on how to best respect the history and meaning of Jerusalem, or how to reduce the suffering of a dying pet or relative. But that's background.

Coming back to the mental model thing, my mental model is based on 2 specific things: first, I believe that despite values or goals that may differ, facts and logic never will. Hence if you can understand and accept the premise behind someone's values -> logic -> belief chain, but show them a logical fallacy in their thought process, or if you can show that the facts they were using were incorrect, then you're right and they're wrong, full stop. I'm sure this is obvious, but the corollary is that that's the only time I think you can really say that, and if you're going to make an argument that someone is wrong it has to be on those grounds. That's why I make the distinction between (2) and (3).

(To be clear, none of this is to tell you something you didn't know. But ever since I can remember, I was an existential kid; I often wonder about why I'm thinking or doing literally anything! And when I get in an argument or try to persuade someone of something, I do my best to make my thought process as thought-through as possible to give the highest possible chance of actually learning anything; otherwise what's the point. And if you want to be confident about why you're arguing something specific, you have to have thought about the mechanics of convincing someone of something. And so it goes.)

Anyway, the second specific thing is that, partially by choice and partially not, I am one of those people who tries to assume that all humans do share most values, if you drill down far enough. So yes, I think we all want the same things deep down. I think people do bad things for sure-still-bad-but-understandable reasons. I see people who think or do horrible things as "basically the result of what would happen if, from birth, I lived your life, not that that makes it at all okay." I try and identify when people do stuff out of fear and think, "they must be scared." I try not to ever forget the humanity of people I really fucking hate. Pretty much no one lives their life trying to be a dickbag, and those who do must have had a pretty unusual set of life circumstances to think that's a good idea, yeah?

---

...but all of the above stuff is my thought process 99% of the time. That's the background noise in my brain. If I'm a computer, that's Windows (or, if I'm lucky, MacOS), not the program I'm actually trying to run. That's not what I made this post about, at least originally. The point of this post is to point out that sometimes I realize that all those values and stuff don't really exist.

Because, like, why do I think we should reduce the suffering of the misfortunate? Why do I think everyone should have a voice in decisions that affect them? Why do I think the punishment should be proportional to the crime... oh, wait, no I don't, whoopsie, I think the punishment should be optimized for reducing crime in the aggregate and that only a calculated unfair act deserves a calculated unfairness in return, because the correct value that we share is the betterment and fairness of society, and the common assumption that a small-scale simplistic system of justice makes that happen isn't an accurate fact on which to base a moral argument WHOOPS ANYWAY MOVING ON...

The answer, of course, is because it feels right. I had formative, emotionally deep experiences where people suffered, and it was unfair, and they had no say, and it felt bad and it felt wrong. And I extrapolated my values based on those feelings, and those feelings were put there by chemicals in my body that humans have evolved such that we would form a productive and long-lived society. I may feel like logic and facts are fundamentally right, and I have no choice but to use them, but morals are fundamentally... just what happened to work for humanity to survive. We don't have to choose to prioritize them, or to believe them.

But I do. And I recognize that too is because it makes me feel good to do so. (There's no getting around, from an existential standpoint, that you're made out of the same chemicals as everything else, unless you believe in higher stuff.) And I'm okay with that. "My religion is that the most fundamental feelings I've experienced are worth following" is a statement I'm totally comfortable with.

And if a disagreement boils down to that? Well, I'll go from there.

[lunasilvermorny]

Just a conversation (with Bill)

I thought about the conversation mechanism that we have in the game (HPHM), and was just trying to think of a more organic way the things they say can fit in a real conversation.

It’s not perfect, but I tried my best.

(BTW - I’m not a native speaker, so I might have some mistakes that I wasn’t able to detect. I apologize in advance.)

This is a conversation between Bill and MC toward the end of the second year.

Sitting with Bill (Meal conversations #1)

Bill: You can deny it all you want.

MC: I'm not. You're just wrong.

Bill: Searching for the Ice-Vault, how does that not make you a Gryffindor?

MC: I'm not doing it for thrill seeking, I'm doing it to find my brother.

Bill: A true Ravenclaw would just read about it. Like your friend- Rowan.

MC: A true Ravenclaw would think of a strategy to find out what he wants.

Bill: Just go with me for a second - What do you associate with Gryffindor?

MC: Courage.

Bill: And what trait do you need in order to open the vault.

MC: You need to be brave-

Bill: Exactly.

MC: -but also very strategic and clever.

Bill: And brave.

MC: No one is that one-dimensional.

Bill: Who's the founder of Gryffindor?

MC: Godric Gryffindor. What does that prove?

Bill: Knows facts about her true house.

MC: Knows facts like a true Ravenclaw would.

Bill: Another proof - who do you like better – Flitwick or McGonagall?

MC: That's irrelevant!

Bill: Who?

MC: McGonagall, but I don't hate Snape, as well. With your logic, I can also be a Slytherin.

Bill: Depends.

MC: On what?

Bill: Who do you like better- (MC- "seriously?"), McGonagall or Snape?

MC: You are reaching, my friend.

Bill: Fine – last point. Deal breaker.

MC: We'll see.

Bill: Your nemesis-

MC: She's not my nemesis.

Bill: -Merula. Which house is she in, again? I forgot.

MC: -sighs- Slyth-

Bill: Slytherin! A true nemesis of a Gryffindor.

MC: So many logical fallacies! Gryffindor and Slytherin were best friends, you know.

Bill: Were.

MC: Boo. Weak argument.

Bill: You can deny it all you want, but we both know the truth.

MC: Alright, I'll go along, but if I'm a Gryffindor – you're a Hufflepuff!

Bill: No, I'm not.

MC: No, you are not.

Thank you for reading.

Just a silly idea, hope you liked it.

[Index]

[sexyvampiricmilfsinyourarea]

This is a Red Herring fallacy, a straw man fallacy, and a composition fallacy mixed in with a bunch of buzzwords that say a whole lotta nothing

My anon was referring to a post about actual pedophilia, not a claim that being trans is pedophilic. Context is key. TERFs calling random trans people predators is not the same as actual predators who happen to be trans being called out.

You don’t get to use being trans (especially when before I didn’t even know you were btw) as a shield for your behavior. Another trans woman and friend of mine who used to follow you literally reblogged this stating her disappointment.

You being into this shit has nothing to do with being trans and me disliking it has nothing to do with TERFs or hating trans people

“Your anon looks similar to other anons from TERFs so you must be a terf!” is a logical fallacy.

1. Context is key. TERFs claim being trans is predatory and can’t be seen by kids. Their anons don’t involve actual examples of pedophilia. My anon is specifically about pedophilia. It “looking similar” doesn’t mean the content or context is the same.

2. If there are actual TERFs out there who are confronting ppl about actual pedophilia then it wouldn’t be a surprise if my anti-pedophilia ask looked similar to theirs. It would simply mean that me and that person happen to agree that actual pedophilia is bad.

There’s only so many words in the English language. My sentence looking like theirs doesn’t mean my views are the same as theirs or that we’re even talking about the same thing.

Secondly, that post is explicitly and blatantly about all of the things you claimed it isn’t. And if you need more evidence than the post itself or the replies and tags in reblogs of ppl consuming it, you can go to OP’s page and see they specifically have their blog dedicated to an incest kink.

“How dare you not like pedophilia! You and your RIGHTEOUS ANGER are pushing PURITY CULTURE!”

You lost credibility the moment you claimed it was about you being trans. I don’t give a flying fuck if you’re the recipient or the active role. I don’t care what your reasons are for liking it. I already told you I’m not trying to ban you and, hell, usually I’d just block these blogs and move on, but there are two reasons this pissed me off in particular:

1. Your likes are public. Which means your shit pops up on my fyp. And it’s worse bc that post itself starts off as innocuous and wholesome and devolves into something slimey and gross. So no matter what made you interested or if you aren’t the active role in this fantasy, it still shows up on other people’s pages where we have to see it. And since it’s not a reblog, there are no filter tags

2. The original post and many posts like this do not tag their shit. I try to curate my experience on this site and certain things are gross, immoral, or triggering for me. The only way I can avoid that is to block when I see it and use filtered tags. And what’s worse and more sinister is that post (and posts like it) always start off as innocent and sweet and innocuous and devolve into rape fantasies or smth of the type. So not only can ppl not avoid seeing shit like that when they want to, but some people might accidentally like or reblog bc they didn’t see the switch up at the end and misinterpreted what they were consuming

Finally, it being fiction isn’t some magic spell that makes it somehow not what it is. I’m anti-censorship in art and fiction so this is not some call to action to ban ppl online, but that does not mean I have to consume, accept, or follow anyone who does. You’re free from censorship, not from my judgment.

And ppl into these immoral or taboo things know damn well what makes it upsetting or triggering or uncomfortable for a majority of people and it’s 100% on you to tag your shit properly so we can avoid it. Especially when you deliberately make posts that start off innocuous for the first 3 quarters of it before revealing its actual nature.

So to summarize, the only reason I didn’t just block like I usually do and move on is because you were a mutual, you have your likes on, and the overall issue of people who don’t tag their shit which makes it hard to avoid or filter.

Turn off your public likes if you’re consuming this shit or don’t whine when people end up seeing it and having a problem.

Y’all know you don’t have to find a problematic reason to justify disliking something, right? You don’t have to find moral “gotchas” for people who disagree with you either. You can just like that thing.