#i'm certain there are plenty of arguments to be made. like plenty of people are fighting for various countries | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

leviathan-supersystem · 5 months ago

Note

how do you get good at debating? how do you put on a cruel stage show? how do you get practice identifying the buckling points in someone’s argument as it happens?

the first and most important part is to read some currently occurring debates on the topic so you know what current talking points are in circulation. this is the absolute most important part, if you don't do this nothing else matters, even if you're smart and well-read in general if you don't know what people are saying in the discourse about that specific topic Right Now then you're going to be playing catch-up and being caught off guard.

at any given time The Discourse on any given topic is mostly composed of like, 12 talking points just getting churned around and repeated back and forth. learn what the best arguments are for the side you agree with, learn what the rebuttals are to the arguments from the opposing side, and if any arguments from the opposing side don't already have ready-made rebuttals, try to see if you can craft a rebuttal of your own to that point from scratch. that way you'll go into every debate basically already knowing what they're going to say and having a ready-to go rebuttal for every point. you can even just copy-paste your rebuttals if you highlight that you're doing that, i do that with my rebuttal against the ancap "achktually, the REAL definition of capitalism is-" argument, and the fact that i'm copy-pasting the same block of text and it works flawlessly every single time just makes their argument look even worse.

If an opponent makes any given claim, don't just assume it's true. look it up. especially if they don't have a source, but even if they do have a source, look up other sources on that topic and see if their source has already be debunked. so often i see someone just outright lie in a debate, and the other person just continues the debate assuming their lie was true.

i'm not immune to this myself, i was arguing with that guy who said "ahaha well palestinians are majority shia and yemenis are majority sunnis and sunnis HATE shi'ites, so yemenis don't even actually care about palestinians, they just hate jews!" and i wrote a whole rebuttal assuming the claim about sunni/shia demographics in those regions was true and then i looked up the statistics on shia/sunni demographics in palestine and yemen, not even trying to debunk or fact-check him, only to find that palestine and yemen are both majority sunni! palestine has a *larger* sunni majority even! so i had to go back and delete my whole response and replace it with "palestine is majority sunni you cretin." just assuming an opponent's factual claims are true without checking them is one of the most rookie mistakes out there, but no matter how much experience you have you can still fall into it if you don't check yourself.

since no ideology can ever perfectly capture reality, every single ideology has certain facts that they can't address adequately. figure out which facts these are for your opponent's ideology and repeat them as often as possible, demand your opponent address them and don't let them try to change the subject when they can't.

for example, there is no way for the conventional anti-communist narrative of "marxism-leninism was bad for everybody, it's fundamentally a failure as an economic system" to account for the fact that the majority of russians consistently say in polls that socialism was better than capitalism and that the soviet union was the greatest time in the history of russia. if you just keep coming back to this fact they'll just keep getting more stressed out and trying to dodge that topic in more desperate ways.

ideologies will also oftentimes have internal inconsistencies, you can also just keep bringing the conversation back to these and watch your opponent squirm. also, conversely, if there are any inconsistencies in your own views, correct these so your opponent can't do this to you. there are plenty of right-wingers who get a lot of mileage by pointing to the dissonance between gun control and other popular progressive positions ("how are you going to condemn the police and then say only cops should have guns?" etc) and by simply being adamantly pro-gun and against gun-control i can basically become impervious to those arguments. they keep using those arguments and i just say "well i'm against gun control" and it shuts them down completely.

similarly a lot of these arguments that hinge on pointing out hypocrisy/incongruity on the other side are directly mirrored by an inverted hypocrisy/incongruity on their own. while the right-wingers are correct to point to an incongruity in the popular progressive "anti-cop, pro-gun control" position, this incongruity is mirrored by an equal incongruity in the "pro-cop, anti-gun control" position which is popular among right-wingers ("if you think we need guns to overthrow the government, why do you want the agents of that government better armed and equipped? who do you think enforces the gun control laws you decry?" etc)- if you jump into the fray of this discourse with an "anti-cop, anti-gun control" position, you can hammer the right-winger on their inconsistency while remaining invulnerable to attempts to do the same to you. similarly if any more mainstream liberals want to try to start shit with you you can also point to the incongruity/hypocrisy of their position while remaining impervious to retaliation.

i'm using gun control as an example, but you can apply this sort of tactic to basically any discourse where two sides are mutually accusing each other of hypocrisy/incongruity. they're probably both right to a degree, and you can get a lot of mileage by crafting a position more internally consistent than either side of the debate.

also, anyone who tries to convince you you should only argue in a vacuum is dumb as hell, your opponents previously stated opinions are completely relevant to the conversation, especially if they suggest that their currently stated positions in the debate are insincere or hypocritical. if someone is debating israel/palestine with you, and they say "the hamasniks don't represent the interests of the palestinian people- it is israel, ultimately, who does, and the hamas extremists are just disrupting this peace and making things worse for everyone." it's absolutely relevant if a week ago they were posting "all arabs are subhuman dogs who must be exterminated, islam is an inherently violent religion which no society should tolerate" and so on and so forth.

if you're arguing about a topic with someone, search that topic on their blog and see what else they've had to say about it. people will whine about "poisoning the well fallacy" but that's obviously just a fake "fallacy" attempting to ban an entirely legitimate debate tactic. yes, if someone is insincere in making an argument, that absolutely reflects badly on their argument, and their previous track record absolutely can demonstrate if they're insincere, it's stupid for them to go "uh uh uh poisoning the well fallacy, you can't point out that i'm a lying little shit, you have to pretend i'm not" and everyone who sees the debate will know it's stupid for them to do this. if you've effectively revealed someone as a liar, they won't be able to redeem their reputation in anyone's eyes by saying "well you're not allowed to prove i'm a liar" no matter how hard they try.

idk thats the stuff i can think of off the top of my head, i'll try to add more if i can think of anything.

111 notes · View notes

fayewoodss · 4 months ago

Text

I've been pushed to an extreme recently and I need to get this off my chest for my own sanity. I've been ignoring this for months and doing what I can to avoid it, but things have increasingly gotten worse and I'm at a breaking point.

I know there are a lot of people keeping tabs on my blog for all the wrong reasons. This has led to a lot of my posts, fandom related and not, being taken and manipulated in ways to frame me negatively and warp any and all of my genuine intentions. I've done my best to address situations brought directly to me in good faith and with sensitive context, but everything has gotten out of hand and turned into a situation that has left me paranoid, anxious, and distraught. I need it to stop, even though I know it most likely won't.

This all started with my first drawing of the Dream Team girlfailures au in November and how I drew Claire. I understand the issue people had with it and I recognize some of the counter arguments and their valid points, but I think I explained my points well and they are equally valid. I stand by my explanation and I won't be rehashing all of it. The most I'll say is that my representations of cc!Dream in fandom context and of Girlfailures!Dream/Claire as an AU character are derived of a similar foundation but the latter is a fictional entity and not the real man.

I am always open to critique and discussion, but the feedback I've received and the long standing fixation on that art piece hasn't always been good faith critique, and has much more often been harassment and degradation of me as a person. That one drawing has led to an ongoing issue with what I would consider to be stalking and harassment.

Mar, @/cuntdrolo, has made at least 50 posts about and/or involving me, in those either directly linking my blog, indirectly mocking me and my posts, and harping on topics and discussions I was an active participant in. She claims none of this is harassment and stalking, that all of it is derived from me being a "sensitive golo" and normal fandom drama, when it's not. This hasn't been about fandom drama for a long time.

The only time I've directly interacted with her was to send her this message today:

She responded and blocked me, which is what I wanted, but has continued to post about me and this entire situation (which involves other people but I won't be dragging them into my part of this).

Here is a list of every post about me since mid-November. A few links I know for certain are missing, but I was unable to find the posts and two screenshots I had from that time saying I deserved to be killed for my art were deleted long ago. You will have to take my word for that unless I find them, but I understand and respect it if you don't.

I know she won't stop. I know there are people who will agree with her and support her, seeing only one side of this all. I don't care if people like my art. I don't care if people like me. I just want to be left alone and enjoy this fandom space without feeling like every action of mine is being watched and picked apart to an audience that doesn't know me and doesn't care to know me.

I've been in fandoms my whole life. I've dealt with plenty of fandom and personal drama. I've never experienced something to this degree of obsession, stalking, and harassment. I know a lot of this may get twisted back on me, but know I've done so much to ignore this and move on, but after this week with so much more being brought to my attention. I cracked.

Do not go to her blog. Do not interact with her posts. Do not send her anons. Do not involve yourself in this beyond reading this post and understanding my current mindset.

I don't want to be involved in this anymore. Stop making posts about me and leave me alone.

Thank you.

#discourse #oh whale #im not leaving this blog or this fandom but i am going to be less active here for the weekend #im also turning off anon #you can dm me directly if you are involved and want to talk about this

20 notes · View notes

jellybeanium124 · 20 days ago

Text

I can't listen to certain parts of hamilton these days without feeling a spear pierce through my heart and soul and explode vines of suffering through my arteries. hamilton is not perfect or immune to criticism, in fact, it's the warranted criticism of the show that makes it hurt so much today. there's no other time hamilton could've been made. its foundation is so firmly planted in the obama administration, in 2015. this time of hope for the better, this time where we believed we could put the ugly parts of our past behind us, this time of optimism and naiveté. hamilton is naive. maybe part of the reason I feel that way is because I was 12-13 at the time of its height in popularity, but plenty of people besides me have discussed its toothless and bizarre approach to race and the history of the united states.

but as much as it's toothless, as much as it fails, as much as it's wrong, as much as it's "problematic," it is the way it is because it's full of hope. stupid, ignorant hope, sure, but hope. it's the kind of stupid naive hope not even a 13-year-old can have in 2025, with innocent people (and babies!!) being sent to foreign prisons they don't come back from, and the ICE raids in LA. hamilton can't exist today. it has no compelling arguments for optimism anymore. what message does a 12-year-old latine kid get from hamilton in 2025? I don't know. I'm not 12 years old or latine. but I'd have to imagine it sounds like some of the most poorly concealed propaganda and lies they've seen in their short, trump-filled life.

#nina rambles

8 notes · View notes

thedoubteriswise · 1 year ago

Text

I keep seeing complaints that people responding against anti-voting propaganda content are being "condescending" and "patronizing" and therefore are hurting their own cause. to a certain extent, I understand the point being made; it's true that people don't respond well to being insulted or feeling like they're being insulted. I've made this point many times before myself. but some of the takes I'm seeing have me at the end of my fucking rope, so I'm just going to reiterate three points that are less about this specific conversation and more about political debates in general:

refusing to consider the meat of someone's valid argument purely because you don't like the tone they're taking while making it is shitty behavior, and it's a great way to end up with factually wrong opinions. we've had a whole conversation about this in recent years; it was pretty hard to miss.

saying or implying that someone is a bad person (or annoying, or cringey, or whatever) instead of addressing the meat of their argument is an ad hominem attack. it's a logical fallacy. there are plenty of times where it doesn't matter and it's not that deep, we can make jokes, fine. but when forming your actual real opinions, it's critical that you agree or disagree with an idea, not with the people who are having it.

I've seen plenty of posts that took a hostile tone. I've also seen plenty that didn't, yet were still described as being patronizing. at this point, I'm not sure how people can phrase their arguments without being accused of condescension, because part of the problem with this topic (and many others, to be fair) is that people who need to hear corrections to their own thinking have gotten extremely attached to a specific way of conceptualizing how american politics work that isn't reflective of reality, or have linked their identity to engaging with politics in a specific way that has been sold to them as "radical." we've got a lot of people more interested in maintaining a sense of identity or catering to their own moral scrupulosity than in getting real world results that would actually line up with their stated values.

I do think that some people's frustration in combating this comes out at condescension. that's unfortunate, and I agree that it can be counterproductive. but I think there is also a strong element of people hearing that their political strategy is ineffective, dangerous, and poorly considered, and experiencing that as an attack to their identity, moral beliefs, or in-group. this is an extremely common phenomenon; a great recent example of it is conservatives who resisted mask and vaccine requirements - the things they were saying and doing were materially harmful to themselves and others, but telling them that was attacking something they had folded into their identity, so they pushed back even as they personally suffered the consequences of that decision.

my point is, if you have a negative response to hearing that your choice not to vote and to keep publicly discouraging voting is irresponsible and going to have undesirable results, it might be because the person saying so is being a dick about it, or that they generally suck as a person. I truly can't dispute this, the world is full of assholes. But a) does that make their argument factually wrong? what evidence do you have of this? does it hold up against the point they're making? And b) are they really being a dick, or are they simply challenging something that feels personal to you?

43 notes · View notes

ms-demeanor · 2 years ago

Note

Nahhhh you lost me at the copyright bullshit. A machine created to brute force copy and learn from any and all art around it that then imitates the work of others, an algorithm that puts no effort of its own into work, is not remotely comparable to a human person who learns from others' art and puts work and effort into it. One is an algorithm made by highly paid dudebros to copy things en masse, another is the earnest work of one person.

I mean. You're fundamentally misunderstanding both the technology and my argument.

You're actually so wrong you're not even wrong. Let's break it down:

A machine created to brute force copy and (what does "brute force copy" mean? "Brute Force" has a specific meaning in discussions of tech and this isn't it) learn from any and all art around it that then imitates the work of others (there are limited models that are trained to imitate the work of specific artists and there are people generating prompts requesting things in the style of certain artists, but large models are absolutely not trained to imitate anything other than whatever most closely matches the prompt; I do think that models trained on a single artist are unethical and are a much better case of violating the principles of fair use however they are significantly transformative so even there the argument kind of falls apart), an algorithm that puts no effort of its own into work (of course this is not a fair argument to be having really because you're an asker and you can't argue or respond but buddy you have to define your terms. 'Effort' is an extremely malleable concept and art that takes effort is not significantly more art-y or valid than art that takes little or no effort like this is an extremely common argument in discussions of modern art - is Andy Warhol art, is Duchamps' readymades series art, art is a LOT more about context than effort and I'm not sure you're aware of the processing power used to generate AI art but there is "effort" of a sort there but also you are anthropomorphizing the model, the algorithm isn't generating "its own work"), is not remotely comparable to a human person who learns from others' art and puts work and effort into it. One is an algorithm (i mean it's slightly more complicated than that, we're discussing a wide variety of models here) made by highly paid dudebros (this completely ignores the open source work, the volunteer work, the work of anybody who is not a 'dudebro,' which is the most typically tumblr way of dismissing anything in tech as the creation of someone white, male, and wealthy which SUCH a shitty set of assumptions) to copy things en masse, another is the earnest work of one person.

Okay so the reasonable things I've pulled out of that to discuss are:

"A machine created to learn from any and all art around it is not remotely comparable to a human person who learns from others' art and puts work and effort into it. One is an algorithm made to copy things en masse, another is the earnest work of one person."

And in terms of who fair use applies to, no. You're wrong. For the purposes of copyright and fair use, a machine learning model and a person are identical. You can't exclude one without excluding the other. There isn't even a good way to meaningfully separate them if you consider artists who use AI in their process while not actually generating AI art.

I feel like I don't really have to make much of an argument here because the EFF has done it for me. The sections of that commentary from question 8 own are detailed explanations of why generative models should reasonably be recognized as protected by fair use when trained on data that is publicly available.

But also: your definition of "copying" is bad. You're wrong about what a copy is, or you're wrong about what generative image models do. I suspect that the latter is much closer to the truth, so I'd recommend reading up on generative image models some more - that EFF commentary has plenty of articles that would probably be helpful for you.

126 notes · View notes

bnuuys-writing · 2 years ago

Text

Meet my Yuusona!

This is Jenny, but she goes by Jen. More information down below! <3

No one knows where Jenny has come from, but they all know she is able to wield magic without a pen. She also has all these strange markings on her body that she keeps hidden that occasionally glow when she is feeling certain strong emotions such as the ones of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Jenny is a caregiver, a empath who knows who is crying the next room over without even looking up from the book she is reading. She is able to diffuse fights before they even start either by fighting and winning herself or talking everyone out of it. She is someone you can rely on and trust if you're having a hard time with something either in school or emotionally. She will mom you, in short.

Fun Facts about Jenny! She actually had come from Devildom to here, and to avoid making connections with everyone, she gave out a fake name in hopes of being able to go home with no strings involved. Her name is actually Ophelia. Lia for short. She was learning how to wield magic by Solomon at first and the pacts she made with the brothers, angels, and the Butler and Prince of Devildom themselves only spur her magic on. She is more able to cast healing spells that fighting spells, so she summoned a familiar which was a brown rabbit! Yet, in the transport to Twisted Wonderland, their same magic merged them together to where Jenny now has a fluffy rabbit tail and large floppy ears!

Relationship Dynamics!

Leona: Absolutely a hater of this man. ONLY because she knows his worth could be so much more and he just doesn't put any effort into showing that he could be a good mage. It absolutely infuriates her. They constantly get into fights that either end up with both of them in the infirmary or both of them getting heated in a vocal argument.

Sebek: Love Interest #1. When Jen first came to NRC and met Sebek, she immediately did NOT like him. Both of them getting into silly little arguments that would go "So, Beastman-" "I'm actually a human. I just merged forms with my rabbit familiar." "DO NOT INTERUPT ME WHILE I AM TELLING YOU ABOUT LORD MALLEUS!!" "ok, bye." Yet after getting to know him better and better and actually taking time to see past everything, she saw him for who he truly is and just fell heads over heels with him. Yet, he doesn't need to know that.

Silver: Good friend, was a possible love interest and she had a small crush on him but after she fell in love with Sebek, they both just stayed close friends. Silver was one of the first few people to actually greet her into NRC. Sometimes Silver will find himself waking up with his head in Jen's lap as she reads away. They could make a cute couple but they respect each other a lot to not meddle with each other's love life.

Vil: Imagine; Malleus with Sebek. But now its Jenny and Vil. If anyone disrespects her housewarden, they will get thrown. Epel is impressed by this but Vil just taught her how to hurt people with words and how to make it sting. Jenny doesn't really hurt people without a good cause. But she heavily admires Vil due to the fact that he seriously reminds her of Asmodeus.

Azul: This is her boss. Was love interest #3 but after working for him constantly as either a waitress with the Tweels on the weekday and Singing for Monstro Lounge on the Weekend, that dwindled down fast. They both seriously respect each other and Azul has made the comment of making a deal about her voice once or twice in which she has denied more than plenty.

Ace and Deuce: These two are her best friends and Ride or Die's. Especially Deuce. She makes sure that they are all caught up and studied on homework before they can go ask Azul for tutoring papers all over again. Rewards them with baked goods that were helped made by Trey just to make sure that they keep their grades above a C-. C's get degrees!

Grim: She doesn't really interact with Grim all that much even though she is Housewarden of Ramshackle, but is an honorary member of Pomefiore. Its all because she is severely allergic to cats. But if you mess with her baby? You are so fried. Prepare to meet the actual full power of Wrath.

Crowley: Does not like him. She has thrown a chair at him. They do not interact unless absolutely necessary and she is finding her own way back home.

#twisted wonderland #twisted wonderland yuu #twisted wonderland oc #twisted wonderland yuu oc #octwst #twst #twst oc #twst yuu #twst yuu oc #yuusona #twst yuusona #twisted wonderland yuusona #sebek zigvolt #silver vanrouge #twst ace #deuce spade #azul ashengrotto #vil shoenheit #leona kingscholar

78 notes · View notes

1moreff-creator · 3 months ago

Text

DROS CH3 Part 6 First Impressions

Third trial let's go!!! Always fun to play along with these :D

CWs

"Davis: We can’t just trust Kennedy so easily. Sure, it’s a weird move to admit to attempted murder, but still, the fact that she’s a confirmed attempted murderer definitely makes her way more suspicious than anyone else." Not... a great line of logic, obviously lol.

"Kennedy: Of course you’re saying that! You’re the traitor, and the person I tried to kill was your mastermind! Besides, it was my second in command who died. Why would I kill Vivi? You’re the one who was against her. You probably killed them." Some parts of this make sense (the "second in command" thing mainly), others are also bad xD

"Davis: You’d have done it if you wanted to kill Aidan and you were worried Vivi would save his life." This makes a bit more sense, but I would expect Kennedy to attack Vivi after Aidan in that case, no?

[Puzzling Pieces] Yay!

"Davis: Aidan’s not the mastermind…

Harper: Even if he was… is what you did next really necessary?

Kennedy: What, killing him?

Davis: He’s not dead, either…!" "Sometimes I can still hear their voice..." "I'm right here!" ass moment.

"Taylor: “We’re in a Class Trial, Rey.”"

Davis: …" Well I guess Aidan's not dead so it's not as bad as the Antonia impressions from back in the first chapters, but I can still see why Davis would be upset by that lmao.

"_____ is the _____ _____ _____ for _____ _____." ... What? I actually don't entirely know what point we're gonna want to make, but I'm assuming maybe it's that we should be arguing about the Vivi situation instead of the Aidan case? After all, Vivi's is the one that matters "for the class trial." Except, I'm not sure if that's a possible thing to say with our words, because we have a severe lack of connecting words like "this."

In fact, I actually have little how to construct a functioning sentence with the stuff we have. So... maybe "Kennedy is the most obvious suspect for Vivi's murder", with the idea that exposing herself as an attempted murderer makes no sense if she actually killed Vivi? I don't actually agree with that argument, but it's an argument I can make with the words I have, which is better than most other things I can come up with here. Fully expecting it to be wrong but y'know, I have to continue reading at some point :p

[Answer: Kennedy is the most obvious suspect for Vivi's murder] Listen, this may look cool, but I genuinely made, like, the entire list of green words and a little guide of what words could fit in certain spaces to help me come up with something, and I'm relatively sure this is, like, one of five possible sentence variations lmao. Still kinda proud of getting it though xD

"Ellis: This whole story, with the timing and the stabbing, is… weird. I agree with Davis: Kennedy is the most obvious suspect for Vivi’s murder." Oh wait but we're actually arguing Kennedy is the killer. I. Uh. Don't necessarily agree with this idea lmao. It's a reasonable enough path of logic, though.

"Kennedy: He told me Davis was coming. I didn’t want to get into a fight with the traitor when I was already disarmed. Besides, then Davis would say that he witnessed me at the scene of the crime, and if he came with a weapon, he’d be able to force me to run away. The timing would work out and everything. You’d probably all vote for me, and the two of them would get exactly what they wanted." I mean, yeah. This enough sense, if you follow Kennedy's logic from his point of view.

"Noah: So, you really were just trying to help end the killing game, then…" Was this ever in question? I thought we all knew Kennedy had good intentions but is just way too insane to be actually helpful.

"Davis: Besides, Kennedy is, as established, the most suspicious one here. Even if you doubt it’s correct, can we at least discuss it? There’ve been plenty of Trials where people have stepped in to defend people who were innocent, and that’s been a great thing– but that requires talking about the possibility in the first place. The important part is that we take the time to ask those questions." I would argue that this only really works if you talk about the murder in general at all before going in with a suspect, no? Like, I don't even think Davis saw the crime scene in detail, given he immediately went to tend to Aidan. Surely you'd at least be curious about that, right? :v

"Kennedy: Sure. But I’m innocent, and I’ll prove it to you after enough time.

Jeff: Innocent of Vivi’s murder, maybe…" I like that line from Jeff, just wanted to point it out :) [Nonstop Debate]

"Kennedy: Yes, it’s true that I killed Aidan." Not dead big guy xD

Uh... Not entirely sure, but maybe take:

"Harper: Generally, though this crime seems… oddly straightforward."

And shoot it with State of Vivi's Body? There's not many injuries, which points to a simple murder. I could also see it being the Monoquin File, or a combination.

(By the way, the reason I'm not shooting Noah's line, "These cases tend to be pretty convoluted, right?", even though it would carry the same idea, is that Noah is technically talking about the other murders, which were indeed convoluted, while Harper is explicitly talking about this one :p)

[Answer: Monoquin File #3 → “she was already dead”] Sorry I completely forgot that the characters haven't yet reached the conclusion that the time in that file is a lie xD

"Kennedy: Well, that’s the File’s lie, then. Nice to clear that up early into the Trial." I mean, that's not the only reason I think that's the lie, but it works. Always nice to agree with the Conspiracy Theorist! Wait.

"Paris: Then the lie wouldn’t benefit them, right? Like, he’d totally be setting himself up to look super suspicious." Man Paris has kinda taken over Vivi's spot as second in command to Kennedy huh? lmao

"Jeff: Or Kennedy’s the killer and there’s a reason why he wants us to believe that the File’s lie is the time instead of something else." Wow we're already descended into this kind of reasoning? Off to a fantastic start!

"Harper: Hold on…! Either way, whether you support Kennedy or not, isn’t it entirely too early to be deciding on a culprit?" Thank you Harper!

"Kennedy: How about this! Instead of running through these hypotheticals, I’ll prove my innocence, here and now, and then we move forwards!" Let's go Kennedy, do it!

"Kennedy: You don’t have a plausible alternate murder location. If the location is Vivi’s room, I’m right and the time is wrong." That- Well proving what the lie is doesn't necessarily absolve them unless you go with the logic of "the lie has to help the blackened", but I'll take it.

"Mark: It means we’d need another murder location. Somewhere that isn’t Kennedy’s room, but could plausibly work. Otherwise, Kennedy’s time is accurate." I'm seeing a Hangman's Gambit a little below this, are we actually supposed to come up with a different murder location? 'Cuz I got nothing.

[Hangman's Gambit] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Well shit.

Vivi's room is in the fourth floor, so if we go with the idea that it can't be too far (which I'll decide means third and fourth floor only), our options that match the letters are Noah's Room, Vivi's Room, Ellis' Room (grammar pog), Mark's Room, Davis' Room, Paris' Room, and Staff Room (though it's called "Staff Rooms" in the map). Maybe Cass' Room or Jeff's Room if you count the apostrophe. In fact, not even the other floors have much else that fits. The only one that makes any sort of sense is Vivi's Room, maybe Staff Room even if that's not what is called in the map. If played "properly", I would ask for "i" and then either go for Vivi's room or the staff room depending on the answer, but as it stands, my guess will just be "Vivi's Room". I know it's not an alternate location but I'm guessing the point is that there is no better location.

[Answer: Staff Room] The map lied to me T_T Nice to see accirax got it first try though!

"Ellis: …You sick bastard. Did you murder in front of those freaks in the Staff Room ‘cause they couldn’t snitch?!" Man Ellis really wants Kennedy to be the killer, huh? I get it, but damn xD

"Harper: I already thought it was unfair of the establishment to allow us entry into the staff’s personal rooms as part of this killing game. Allowing an entire murder to be committed inside… that would be needlessly cruel. Based on the resources they have here, I’m sure that they could have provided the staff a place to live away from the events of the killing game…

Jeff: Are you… questioning the morality of the people who host the killing game…? I assumed we were all on the same page about that already." Harper's faith in humanity is quite wholesome actually :D

"Kennedy: If they’re even employees. Maybe they’re in on the creation of the game. Or, alternately, maybe they’re being threatened or manipulated in some way, and they don’t want to participate at all." Kennedy you are being accused as the blackened of this trial could you wait on the Conspiracy Theorizing xD

[Nonstop Debate] Well, let's see what we got!

"Davis: It’s true. Other than it seeming sort of weird that she kept to herself, there’s no reason to think she wouldn’t be alive until 10 or so." I'm shooting this with Vivi's e-Handbook (I've been capitalizing that wrong this entire time why did no one tell me), because there's an unanswered text from Kennedy at 9 AM. If Vivi was still alive by then, it'd be strange for them not to answer it.

[Answer: Vivi’s e-Handbook → “no reason to think she wouldn’t be alive”] What can I say? I'm a bit of a gamer myself <- barely ever actually plays video games.

"Ellis: Well… fine, there is something." You don't need to sound that disappointed Ellis xD

"Ellis: Given that the two of them were close, it’s kinda weird to think she would’ve ghosted Kennedy." Though, now that you say it aloud, there was the whole "we're now ignoring Aidan and Kennedy" thing Vivi spearheaded in the morning, but I took that more as "we're no longer ignoring Davis and Aidan" than actually ignoring those two.

"Kennedy: Exactly! Or at least, unless Vivi was actually complicit in her own murder, and we made a plan together to fake that message to give me that exact excuse…

Jeff: …Are you intending on saying arguments that go against your own innocence so stupidly that we don’t even consider them.

Kennedy: Of course not! I’ve got nothing to hide." This is actually a pretty good attitude in a trial. If you know you're innocent, bring every argument to the table, knowing that being honest can only lead to the truth and thus your innocence. And it's an attitude that works great with Kennedy's character of always looking for the truth while still being stubborn in her conclusions. Basically I like this :)

[Lie Detector] Here's my answers!

The victim is Vivi Mitchell. -> State of Vivi's Body + Vivi's e-Handbook

She died of blood loss -> State of Vivi's Body + Vivi's Scalpel

in her room -> State of Vivi's Body + State of Vivi's room

at 9:55 AM. -> Monoquin File Lie

I remembered you need two bullets for each this time >:)

[Checking Answers] So instead of "Vivi's Scalpel", I was supposed to use "State of Vivi's Room", and instead of "State of Vivi's room", I was supposed to use "BDA". Even though BDA only gives you the place the corpse was found, not where the murder took place, but whatever. Everything else I got right. You know what, close enough for me!

"Harper: …I was in favor of discussing the different aspects of the crime, as we usually do…" If no one else got me, I know Harper Young got me. Last time I said this about a character they died, like, that same chapter. Let's hope it doesn't happen again!

{Harper then proceeded to be the main suspect for half the chapter. Lol. Lmao even}

"Kennedy: Davis is the clear, #1 suspect!

Davis: It’s still obviously Kennedy." Pfft-

[Davis and Kennedy argue] Holy hell we're popping off!!! I'm loving the drama~

shit am i a paris kinnie now how did this happen

"Monoquin: This Trial seems to have reached an impasse. If neither party can convince the whole group that the other is the culprit, I will divide everyone into opposing sides.

Vanessa: Do we have to…?" [Scrum Debate] It really is funny. Most people aren't even going hard on any one culprit, and I imagine most of them would be willing to go with Harper's idea to discuss the crime in general terms before locking in a suspect. It really is just Davis and Kennedy who caused this thing to happen xD

And we're still on the "Kennedy's the culprit" side, huh? We're kinda flip-flopping a lot on that this part huh :p

Kennedy: Davis is clearly the most suspicious one here. He’s the only culprit who would benefit from the _____!" -> Jeff / File

Paris: Davis was totally trying to do the whole _____ by himself. It’d be a really nice way to control information~ -> Mark / Investigation

Vanessa: I mean, Davis could still be the _____, right? That could be… suspicious…? -> Ellis / Traitor (Vanessa why. I expect this from Kennedy but please T_T)

Noah: It’s still true that Davis is one of the people with no _____… -> Taylor / Alibi (Either people with orange color coding need to start dying or I'm gonna need to change the color coding on some of these people xD)

Kennedy: Based on his connection to _____, and therefore the killing game itself, there’s no one more suspicious! -> Davis / Aidan

[Checking Answers] Oh Paris was Autopsy instead of Investigation, that actually makes more sense lol. Then again, it's not really an autopsy if the guy's not dead so :v The rest are correct so let's go!

"Paris: Tay, I can’t believe you went against me!" Ooh, there's an arc afoot :O

"Harper: Enough!" Woo! Add Harper to the list of "people who you wouldn't expect to get mad at Kennedy but still got mad at him because of how annoying they've been this chapter!" And maybe look into changing the name of that list it's a bit of a mouthful lmao.

"Mark: Well, we should probably pick one of the two attempted murders. Whether they’re completely separate or intertwined, it’s easier to focus on one victim at a time." [Select the Person] I'm assuming Vivi because her murder is the one that actually matters lol.

[Answer: Vivi] Yep!

"Taylor: Then, should we start with the murder weapon? We usually start there." [Evidence Select] I accidentally saw that the answer starts with 'Vivi', but I would have still selected Vivi's Scalpel anyways.

[Answer: Vivi's Scalpel] Progress!

"Mark: One way or another, the scalpel became bloodied at some point, so the original blade doesn’t change much about how the crime went down.

Vanessa: Well, except for one part, right?

Mark: And what would that be?" [Nonstop Debate] Huh. Wonder what Vanessa's about to bring up.

"Vanessa: Vivi’s scalpel would be kinda hard for the killer to access, right?" ... wha...

Okay I guess if you don't know about the injury to Vivi's head, the idea the killer grabbed the scalpel and immediately slashed their throat is a little hard to imagine. But, still :p

"Davis: Her ear was perfectly fine, so the killer ripping it out is off the table…" And yeah that too- Wait how do you know about that Davis? You were away literally the whole investigation. Maybe he's very quick at observation and noticed the ear was uninjured in the brief moment he was up there? Or someone talked to him about it and I forgor :p Or maybe he's the killer idk.

"Jeff: That could be to distract from the fact that they were able to get the jump on Vivi…" I'll shoot this with State of Vivi's Body to bring up the trauma to the head. Works well enough me thinks.

[Answer: State of Vivi’s Room → “With enough surprise”] Ah, I guess that's another path of logic to take yeah. Fair!

[Evidence Select] Accidentally saw this was State of Vivi's Body oops :p

"Kennedy: It doesn’t matter if it was a genuine fight or a sneak attack set up to look like a fight. If the conclusion we draw is surrounding furniture being used to knock Vivi out either way, it doesn’t change anything." Fair.

"Paris: Wow, so glad we had that whole little diversion. We’re in such a different place from where we were last time." It is true that we haven't really advanced, but it's still a good practice to get everything about the murder itself sorted before going to blackened discussion :p

[Progressive Deduction] Woo!

Why did Kennedy initially suspect Davis? -> b. Because she thinks he's the traitor.

Why did Kennedy decide to target Aidan? -> a. Because he believes he's the mastermind. (Where the fuck are going with these basic ass statements xD)

What does that mean for both Kennedy and Davis? -> d. They were already at the center of suspicion before the Trial

I... are we gonna argue that those two wouldn't risk killing someone when there would inevitably be suspicion placed on them?

[Checking Answers] I was right, so, thanks for the freebie I guess :v

"Ellis: Thinking back on it… this was a pretty bad setup for Davis and Kennedy. Like, people would easily believe that traitor Davis killed Vivi. And, by admitting to killing Aidan before the Trial even began, Kennedy must have known that we would throw some suspicion their way for Vivi, too. Is that something that the blackened would have planned to put themselves through…?" And that does seem to be the argument! Interesting...

"Davis: I was content to believe, before the Trial, that Kennedy was just misguidedly trying their best to protect everyone. After they tried to kill Aidan, though, I doubt that…" I mean. Fair.

"Noah: Uh… we good, then…?

Davis: …

Kennedy: …

Both: For now." Woohoo! We can make progress!

"Taylor: Then, I guess we have a suspect list…?" [Evidence Select] I also accidentally saw that this was Alibis, but I would've guessed that anyways.

"Harper: …My apologies, but I was wandering for quite some time. I don’t remember where I went immediately after breakfast.

Kennedy: Harper is the most suspicious.

Noah: Huh? Wait, why?" Okay Noah I know you probably aren't super eager to suspect Harper but you gotta admit that being the only one who can't give a straight answer to "where were you at the time of murder" obviously makes ver the most suspicious.

"Kennedy: You’re someone else without an alibi all day, too. Though I admit it’s a bold move to not even try to get one.

Vanessa: …Ve might’ve tried, right?" Oh oh! Because of the message! Well, if Harper's being brought up as the killer this early, I imagine ve's probably safe, but it ain't looking good for my pal.

"Vanessa: Well, when we were hanging out, Noah got a message from Harper asking where he was and if he was busy. If Harper really is the culprit…

Noah: But, that’s not how it is. There’s no way." Interesting to see that Noah's so defensive even with how much he's been avoiding Harper. It seems their previous buddy-buddyness hasn't faded!

"Kennedy: Check.

Noah: …

Kennedy: Noah. Check it.

Paris: C’mon Noah, if Harper’s really so super innocent, you totally wouldn’t mind showing off the timestamp, right? ‘Cause it won’t be a problem at all~

Noah: …9:05 AM." Noah's very hesitant, that's really fun. Also this perfectly illustrates my point about orange people why are there so many of them. Maybe I should make Kennedy blue or Paris pink because it's getting dire xD

"Harper: I assure you, this is all a misunderstanding. I didn’t have any ill intention. I only wanted to spend time with my friend.

Paris: “Friend”? Hey, hon, how much time have you exactly spent with him lately?

Harper: …Less than I might’ve liked…" Paris has been going really hard this trial, though I guess she's always been a little like that. If she didn't have a perfect alibi, I maybe would be suspecting her again :p And poor Harper, ve's just trying to make friends and ve's getting accused of murder. Well, unless ve's actually the murderer, but y'know.

"Paris: It’s okay, Noah. You don’t have to get all worked up over this. Just let us handle it.

Noah: …But…" Every chapter it seems Paris is getting more and more influence over the cast... I'm sure this won't end completely horribly!

[Puzzling Pieces] Yippie!

"Paris: Don’t worry, it’s only embarrassing if you’re the blackened! Oh, wait." Dude!! She really is going in! You love to see it xD

"It’s _____ that _____ didn’t _____ _____ the _____." Oh dear.

"It's weird that Kennedy didn't set off the BDA"? That's not really true, they've explained why they didn't, but those two words between "didn't" and "the" are killing me unless they're "set off", and I don't know what else to do with it?

[Answer: It’s weird that Harper didn’t set off the BDA.] So I got the general structure right, but I don't think Harper was anywhere near the corpse when the BDA went off? I actually don't know what Ellis is about to say :v

"Ellis: …Hmm. Harper does live just across the hallway from Vivi. If ve was in ver room around 9:40, it’s sort of weird that Harper didn’t set off the BDA verself." ...What? Why would they look into Vivi's room? Am I missing something?

"Mark: I see what you mean. You and I were both looking for Vivi specifically, but Paris and Taylor… Why did you guys join us?" Ah, there it is. It's weird that Harper didn't join the investigation for Vivi. I can see the angle, let's see how this goes.

"Mark: Thanks? But, it was still a weird move on you guys’ parts…

Paris: Fine, whatever, we made a mistake. We have alibis, can we move on?" Dude, this is the one trial I haven't suspected you, Paris, could you avoid suspicion from the most competent person in the cast please? It'd be really awkward if you were the killer this chapter of all chapters xD

"Davis: While we’re on the subject… It would make sense if Jeff’s in the clear too. Even if the staff can’t actually back up his alibi, a Spa treatment is a lot more in-depth. It’d be harder to fake that you’d been there the whole time if someone caught you when you were showing up or something. The involvement of the staff means it’s a lot harder to get away with lying." I mean, I guess that's an argument. Not the best, especially given Jeff could've quickly gone to the Spa after killing Vivi and sorta circumvent this, given they would only be outside the Spa for a few minutes. Still cool that it's Davis of all people defending Jeff, apparently their beef doesn't go deep enough for them to fling suspicion at each other in every trial yet :p

"Harper: I was alone in my room. We all know the walls are soundproof. I stayed inside, and thus had no way to realize that a murder took place." Yeah, that's what I figured, but-

"Harper: I was in the living room area of my room working on my quilt. I wasn’t looking out the window enough to notice that…" Oh it's getting dire out here xD

"Noah: Still, you can’t try to vote for ver! There’s still a lot more to think about. Like, um…" [Question Completion] Noah sure is trying! Good for him!

Also the question I'll go with is "What motive was there?", as I'm pretty sure that's the only grammatically correct question you can make with those words :p It's a good question, though, although I imagine we might say that ve just did it to avoid the Third Motive coming into play.

[Answer: What motive was there?] Grammar pog.

"Taylor: Well, there’s the additional motive, too. Anyone could be worried about it. That adds the time pressure to do something now." Called it! I mean obviously, but y'know.

"Jeff: So you’re saying we’d need a motive that applies to you specifically?

Harper: Or something else to indicate me as the culprit. I only ask that you have more behind your decision to accuse me.

Davis: I guess we can talk about it, then…" [Puzzling Pieces] Let's see it!

"_____ _____ to _____ the _____." There's actually quite a few plausible answers here, so in order not to spend more time than I already have with these ones (I spent like 40 mins on the first one help) I'll take a shot in the dark and say "Harper wanted to escape the conflict." Not my brightest answer, but it makes some amount of sense.

[Answer: Harper wanted to escape the conflict] Ignore what I said before I'm the GOAT xp /silly

"Paris: Oh, duh! That’s so true, we did see Harper, didn’t we Tay? You totally went back into the Kitchen place, right?

Taylor: That’s right! You were carrying a bunch of dishes." HEY SO MAYBE THIS IS THE KIND OF THING WE BRING UP EARLIER?!?!?! xD

"Harper: I’d never want to take credit for the staff’s hard work. They’re the ones who keep the Resort clean, including cleaning up after meals.

Paris: …

Taylor: …

Harper: …That being said, I was feeling quite restless this morning. So… yes, I suppose you could say I pitched in." Harper's just too nice lol

"Jeff: Right… Paris and Taylor definitely saw Harper going to wash the dishes, so that means that ve’s in the clear for the time of the murder.

Noah: …Great! Then, who does that leave?" [Mixed Matches] I mean I wouldn't say Jeff's necessarily cleared if any of you feel like going that route xp

Likely innocent due to inherent suspiciousness of being at odds with Aidan and Davis disincentivizing attempting a Trial. -> Kennedy

Likely innocent due to inherent suspiciousness of being called the traitor disincentivizing attempting a Trial. -> Davis

Likely innocent due to inclusion of Staff in alibi. -> Jeff

Likely innocent due to otherwise odd behavior in relation to the Body Discovery Announcement. -> Mark (I kinda skipped over it here but Taylor did bring this up lol)

Likely innocent due to Paris and Taylor’s accounts. -> Harper

[Checking Answers] I got everything right, though this one was also kind of a freebie xp

"Noah: …Unless there’s something else we’re missing?" [Select the Person] There is Aidan, but there may be more problems with him than all the other suspects combined lmao. I'm still gonna pick him because we haven't discussed him yet, so I assume that's where the trial's gonna go next.

[Answer: Aidan] Yep!

[Intermission] What a cliffhanger! This sure is an interesting direction for the trial to go now!

Woohoo! What a part! Really fun stuff all around here. Even with how little evidence there is to discuss, suspicion is being thrown left and right, which is always fun! Very excited to see where next week's part is gonna go, especially with that last second reveal of who's next on the chopping block! See ya'!

#dros #danganronpa: one shot #vivi mitchell #kennedy rey #davis love #harper young

6 notes · View notes

caelum-in-the-avatarverse · 1 year ago

Note

ive been a fan of ATLA since it came out, and I think I stopped reading fic for it once Korra came out. So (luckily?), I escaped Embers, but im curious to know what is its influence in fanon. Do you know any examples off the top of your head?

Whoa, that's impressive that you managed to skip it if you've been a fan that long. It started in 2009.

And yeah, I do. Admittedly I do not read ATLA fic often these days, so I'm probably behind on current trends. But if you know what you're looking at it's pretty obvious that lots of Zuko-focused fic is influenced by Embers. Granted, oftentimes the writer may not realize they were influenced by Embers--they may have been inspired by a fic that was inspired by a fic that was inspired by Embers. The fic is 14 years old, and the rabbithole runs deep.

So the effects Embers has had, off the top of my head:

The Wani. Zuko's ship does not have a canonical name, but so many writers have used Vathara's name for it that people are surprised when they learn it's not canon. Even I'm guilty of this one, it's such deeply-entrenched fanon that I figured I might as well use it in a throwaway line (tho I'm seriously considering going in and editing it out of the one fic I mentioned it in).

Dragon!Zuko. If Zuko or Fire Nation people are turning into dragons, that idea probably came from Embers; I don't recall ever seeing that trope in ATLA fic before Embers made it a thing.

Certain Aang-critical readings of canon. There are multiple ways people criticize Aang (fans have complained about him not killing Ozai since the finale aired, and shippers have their own gripes), but there are certain arguments that either originated with Embers or were popularized by it. The concept of "Aang told Zuko he'd come with him if he left the SWT alone, then Aang escaped, therefore he broke his word and lied and he's lucky Zuko is such a good person that he didn't turn around and burn the village to the ground because he totally would've been within his rights to do so" is an Embers original. Then there's the "Aang has totally killed people and is therefore a hypocrite and/or idiot who doesn't realize he kills people" criticism, which may have existed before Embers brought it up, but Embers definitely popularized it. (Canonically Aang has done things that would definitely result in people dying, but also canonically we never saw the bodies so the narrative didn't confirm or even acknowledge it, therefore there's plenty of room to interpret Aang's kill count and still be canon-compliant. I'll admit this is a pedantic argument if everyone else admits that some fans are overeager to give Aang a kill count and call him an idiotic mass murderer, especially when they point at the Siege of the North, where the only people he would've killed were enemy combatants). And apparently now there are stories where Zuko is very knowledgeable about Air Nomad culture and teaches Aang about it, or preaches to him about patience or maturity or morality--I reblogged a post about this recently. That entire mentality definitely came from Embers.

Hyper-competent Zuko. This is not solely Embers's doing, but let me explain. Zuko is the fandom's favorite, we love him, he ticks off a lot of boxes people love to see in a character. It is perfectly normal for a fandom to heap all sorts of awesomeness on their fave, and in fanon they become a super-competent badass who puts up with so much and fights so hard despite the odds, they are knowledgeable and intelligent and strategic, they are confident and compassionate and have iron-clad morals. (am I still describing Zuko or Obi-Wan Kenobi? lol) So this version of Zuko probably would've become a thing eventually; Embers was just the starting point. But things have to start somewhere, and in this case, it started with Embers showing off just how to make Zuko a hyper-competent badass. And Zuko is indeed a badass, but canon gave no indication that he'd actually be good at, like, politics, aside from the narrative implying it by saying he was the best person to become Fire Lord. There are takes on Zuko where he's politically astute, spiritually attuned, brilliantly strategic, extremely knowledgeable about all sorts of random things--none of which have much basis in canon, but they aren't necessarily contradicted by canon either. And again, this is just regular fandom behavior--but in the ATLA fandom these takes were sparked by Embers basically laying the foundation and creating the template for how to write Zuko.

Well-researched fic. Like the previous point, this is not solely Embers's doing. Researching stuff for fanfic has been a thing since forever. But Embers was huge, and Vathara talked a lot about the things she knew and the books she'd read, and people were very impressed and praised her for it, and it inspired them to do and show their own research for their fics, too. Unlike the other things on this list, this actually isn't something that annoys me--even I was inspired by this aspect of Embers, in conjunction with the racebending movement and cultural misappropriation criticism, to make research an important part of my own fic. I'd looked up information for my writing before, but Embers really showed how research could make a fic incredible. And frankly, I'm glad for it, because looking up stuff for my fics has proven to be a fun and rewarding pastime, and I love sharing my research with my own readers (tho I really hope my own author's notes aren't as condescending as Vathara's). Now, granted, given some of the opinions in her author's notes and things she's said elsewhere, I consider all of Vathara's information and reading recommendations to be suspect. But I'm glad it's inspired other people to do lots of great research and share it.

And that's all I can think of, off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more, but I haven't read Embers in years, and I don't read much ATLA fic in general these days, so if there's more I'm unaware. If anyone else can think of anything, please do chime in!

#caelum rambles #meta #fandom #fandom history #zuko #aang

66 notes · View notes

violets-emotionalbreakdown · 8 months ago

Text

It's weird to me the level of vitriol that people are aiming at Caitlyn. Just at every turn, taking the absolute worst possible interpretation instead of the likeliest meaning.

Note - this is not excusing or justifying anything Caitlyn has done as ok. This a reaction to the fandom shit I've been seeing.

Spoilers below

They're cops in riot gear. The gas is clearly an analogue to tear gas. Yeah, that's still unacceptable and really fucked up to use. But she didn't fucking mustard gas the entirety of the undercity in an effort to kill everyone like some people are quite literally saying. (Edit - Jesus people, I'm not saying it's literally tear gas. I'm saying the writers are from our world and deliberately invoking certain things, ok? Militarization of the police anyone? The main symptoms of exposure shown in the show are extreme coughing and eye irritation/tearing/redness. That should sound familiar.)

"Her blood runs in your veins." Yeah, because they're sisters. She's referencing them being sisters. She's not saying everyone from the undercity shares the same "subhuman" blood (another actual argument I've seen).

"What kind of animals would do such a thing?" Dehumanizing your enemies is bad. 100% agreed. But she's talking about the people who attacked, not literally every person in Zaun.

Another fav argument - "she's greedily grasping for power". She was clearly surprised at being appointed BY SOMEONE ELSE and couldn't exactly say no. Do I think it's going to go to her head? Yes it will. Will she do bad things with it? 99% certainty. But let's also not forget who actually made the decision to declare martial law either in all of this.

Am I going to defend her hitting Vi? Absolutely the fuck not. But I also don't think she kissed Vi to intentionally manipulate her into doing what she wants either.

All I'm saying is that maybe we can judge her on what she's actually done. What she's doing is bad enough. You don't need to make shit up to make her into a really shitty person sliding into facism who I'm not sure how they're going to redeem (or if I will accept said redemption attempt) - she's doing plenty of that all on her own.

#caitlyn kiramman #arcane s2 spoilers

11 notes · View notes

box-architecture · 1 year ago

Text

Plantrio group chat.

ok I'm going to be really abnormal for a hot minute here but its not my fault I was reminded that Mystic Messenger exists so, fun silly AU under the cut.

Ok so I'm giggling over the concept of a DSMP AU Mystic Messenger style. You're a recent minecraft player who has come to the DSMP, (or maybe you can select a character like Technoblade, shhh this is a crack concept) and you're in a chat group with the other characters involved in The Plan, like Punz and Ranboo (full memories) as someone who is on Dream's Side and is working for Dream

Listen To Me. Listen. Dating Sim the hell out of Dream. It would be so stupid. Listen to me.

you have to respond to text messages at various hours of the day over the course of 14 days, making choices that will decide how the story will go, and how your relationship with Dream will develop. You can encourage or discourage events of exile, the building of the prison, you can side with Dream in arguments in the group chat over the best way to handle certain actions or choose to push against him in others.

You can literally have conversations with Dream at 2 in the morning because Dream doesn't sleep and both talk quietly about how things have changed since the start of the server, listen to him reminisce about Sapnap and George even as he insists it was for the best that they don't talk anymore.

You could also potentially build negative or positive relationships with Punz and Ranboo, which will affect how they respond to you and later decisions in the story. Like if you're going for an ending where Dream doesn't put himself in prison, you have to have high affinity with both characters so they'll side with you against this idea

And you also get private conversations with them as well to foster this. listen 14 days is a lot of time I'm sure plenty can be squeezed in

but in the five seconds since thinking about this silly idea, there's a list of characters you can be

Like, if you choose to be a Random MC, you'd get a sort of pre- selected backstory and could make it up as you go along with how you got into this Plan situation with the trio

But I think it would be really, really fun if you could choose to be Technoblade

Like for whatever reason Techno accidentally gets access to The Plan Group Chat, and after a days worth of conversations, he's allowed to stay in the chat

and he gets Significantly different conversations than from Random MC

but also you can be Hannah, who comes to the DSMP a lot earlier than in canon, or Tina, and they also get different conversations, because they're different characters

and the same bare bones of the route happen, but its still Them and the texting is Them

And that might be too ambitious for an actual game but listen this is likely something that's not going to be actually made so instead Listen. Listen To The Benefits of Silly

But also please consider that you could get The Worst Endings Possible through actively encouraging Dream's self sacrificing behavior, reassuring him that he's making the right decisions all the time, ignoring when other characters bring up concerns

Consider the difference between Supporting Dream and Encouraging Dream. I'm shaking you

Consider having late night convos with Punz as he privately expresses worry for Dream, as he admits that sometimes he wonders if there's any point in The Plan or in even caring about the people of the smp. Consider Ranboo opening up about how fucked up it is to only remember who he is half the time, and the personal guilt he feels about deceiving Tubbo, but how despite his guilt he's still choosing to do this

I know I've mentioned this was for the express purpose of kissing Dream and that its a dating sim but my primary goal is no longer about Dream getting kissed its about giving him friendship

however he probably should still get kissed

but MOST IMPORTANTLY

ITS ABOUT THE WHOLE IDEA THAT IF DREAM HAD LITERALLY JUST. ANY SOLID SUPPORT. THE PRISON AND SO MUCH BULLSHIT WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED

Ranboo isn't himself half the time and Punz believes murder is always the solution they dont count

Pacifist Route. Toxic Route. Befriend people make enemies interact with characters. listen to me.

#backposting #sfw boxing

46 notes · View notes

tamelee · 2 years ago

Note

As a beginner artist im only happy when people reupload and share my art. I don’t want to be arragont enough to think im like samdoesart or something and you’re not really on that level either no offense though your art is inspiring me a lot

Okay, I'll address this then... (Art-rant for anyone who cares;)

... no offense taken. I'm very aware of my (skill)’level' in art and definitely feel a certain type of way about it ;-; .... but that aside, what is your argument here?

Is anyone who doesn't want their art reposted or uploaded on other accounts considered arrogant? Is there some kind of popularity threshold you need to cross before you can request something as simple as this? And if so, what's that threshold to you? I'm genuinely curious.

When does someone become "good" enough to have the right to say that their art is theirs and protect it from being stolen or decide where it gets shared? Who has any say in it, other than the artist or creator themselves? Isn't that extremely subjective to base it solely on that?

Hm. If you're a beginner artist, I'd like to offer some advice....

It's entirely up to you whether you read it, give it any thought, or find it valuable in any way. I'm no Sam, after all. But there are plenty of ways for others to support your art, engage with it, or share it even in their own accounts without taking anything away from the original creator, whether it's art/writing or any other type of creation. However, it's also perfectly fine if you personally don't care about it or if someone allows it only with proper credit because that's your decision as.. you know- the original creator.

You mentioned that you're happy when your art gets reuploaded as a form of "sharing." But do you know what makes me the happiest as an artist Nonee?

Do you know what really brightens my day? 🥹

...It's knowing what people are saying about my work because I can read it on my own posts that are on my own accounts. When I can respond and take it in fully. When I see people using tags that make me snort my drink or when I have to stifle a laugh to the point I’m choking because it's just SO funny! (I genuinely need to make a compilation!!) Sometimes, I get comments that are cursing me out in a playful manner, and it's often followed by an incoherent keyboard-smash. I end up making embarrassing alien-like noises because of it that makes me more grateful than ever to live alone. Other times, I bawl my eyes out because someone left a comment or tagged it with something that just hits differently. A while ago, I got an ask that said I should stop saying 'thank you' on everything because it got repetitive/annoying(?), but I genuinely feel so grateful for all of it 😭!!

I get new ideas because someone suggested something different. I see friends having entire conversations under a drawing that I'm not even a part of because apparently, what I drew resonated with them personally, or it made them feel a certain way, which is oddly fulfilling with art ;-; Just so you know, I read everything... and all this feedback (because it's all feedback in a way) can be very inspiring, don't you think?

Honestly, when it comes to activities like drawing, it's true that it is better to never do it solely for the sake of engagement. Drawing, or more specifically, living as an (aspiring) artist is incredibly lonely.

So, so lonely...

Relying on engagement alone to keep you creating for hours, days, years, or maybe even decades is just not sustainable. It takes an enormous amount of time and dedication to practice, come up with new ideas, and endure the inevitable frustrations that come with it. With anything, keeping yourself inspired at times takes effort also because it requires for you to be in a state of mind that allows new idea’s in the first place which in itself takes practice because you won’t always feel like drawing. You might even encounter nasty comments or discover that something you poured your heart into gets criticized, YOU as a person may even be criticized because what you drew with your current skills (and such a journey is never-ending) in a single moment could get paired with your entire personality or even your humanly morals (ffs) to judge. Which can be more hurtful than you'd expect... especially in the beginning.

Although it may sound silly, the saying "the fun is in the journey” is very real and likely the most important thing to keep you going as an artist. No matter what, you gotta have fun or find a way to have fun.

Yet, even so, now more than ever, the process of creating is very underappreciated as many are looking for “content” that's quickly generated for entertainment. Tsk, some even call art “content” which, IT IS NOT. It's a proven fact that we, as humans, currently have become dopamine junkies with short attention spans. (I totally understand this – I was diagnosed with ADD, hence my extreme hyper-fixations also 😆 it's both a blessing and a curse, tbh.) So, right now, the very thing that can support artists (which means you as a beginner also!) on their creative journey is letting them know you appreciate their art in any way or just let them know your thoughts maybe even by specifying what it was you liked about it so they can carry that into their next drawing.. which is only truly possible through your own accounts y’know? :’) I'm being sincere when I say this really can help.

I get that many people believe that creating should be satisfying in itself, and everyone may expect you to think that way because, after all, you want people to see what you've made and a reposter ‘helps’ you with that, so, it should be enough and you should be happy and grateful actually. Anything beyond that might be considered "arrogant."

And... based on your ask, it seems like you might view having your art reuploaded as a form of 'help,' and if that's the case, it's totally fine. But I want to share a rather harsh reality, because even if those who repost your art provide credit...

They don’t do it for you and it’s not necessarily because they love your art so much 👀 rarely anyone cares to go through a description full with useless trend-based tags or promotive texts they always use only to put in the effort to find your name and most likely, if they follow such accounts there is zero connection with the original artist/creator which means it is WAY more likely in this case that the art you worked on for idk how long ends up becoming a forgettable blur as it is scrolled past 🤷🏻‍♀️

And even if the reposter likes your art personally, that's probably not their primary motivation to share it (except for a very few who are in it for a fandom, sns has a few also). Art that gets ‘selected’ for reposting is typically selected with a specific, often trend-oriented, goal that has little to do with the artist. It's frequently shared with the mindset of a rather poorly-driven marketer. Especially on platforms like IG- many of these accounts exist to benefit the account owner only by making high(er)-follower accounts that later get a different purpose. Many of these accounts will discard all art once it has reached an engagement goal to then move onto something new that's more financially profitable to the account owner, which original art by others is not. And yeah, a lot of these accounts are sold after. There are especially many now due to the IG affiliate program, and recently tiktok also. The same is quickly happening on X with its monetization... and guess what :’)!!! Although original art is hard to monetize, Ai is completely approved.... 🤨🙄 But I won't bore you with all the specifics any longer.

Me not wanting my art on other platforms/accounts, has little to do with credit nor do I think in the very least that I have some sort of control over it by making that decision... but still. I refuse to willingly take part in anything that currently takes ‘art’ (any creative form) and makes a mockery of it, using it for mere "content" or treats it as this ‘thing’ that appeared out of nowhere to then just use any way people like and participate in the narrative that gives the impression that investing time in creating something isn't valuable or a cherished part of human expression that brings and promotes joy.

Because rarely do people take the damn time anymore.

I want all artists/writers/creators/etc- to be acknowledged for their work in general, or, even in the least, acknowledge the work that isn't seen that goes into the final result for others to enjoy. I don't want to continually see art stolen and exploited so rapidly. This phenomenon enables tech bros who don’t have a single ounce of argumentative skill or self-proclaimed "entrepreneurs" to generate their little stolen jpg’s for their absurd 3 a.m. morning-routine videos and use them as banners on their get-rich-quick schemes, scamming the unsuspecting and spamming the internet with this bs, largely thanks to AI making this partly possible... for example. There's not a single platform left that supports artists or helps them fight for security and protection for their work. I know and I'm aware. At the very least, we can say 'no' to reposting because giving up completely makes no room for possible solutions... and then we can work from where we are at all times to find ways to protect a right (because it is) that some might perceive as trivial.

Nevertheless, it is a right, and it definitely isn't an issue of arrogance or skill.

#asktamelee #art talk #anti ai #personal #art theft

48 notes · View notes

sweetlittledaisy7 · 8 months ago

Text

Just a reminder.

1. Stop using adoptees in abortion debates.

2. Stop sharing the fact you've adopted and the child's story.

3. Adoption isn't the answer to abortion. Many kids are available for adoption and aren't adopted. We need more health care benefits not adoptions.

4. Adoptive parents shouldn't be seen as saviors. We shouldn't be made to feel grateful.

5. Stop it with the child to grow up to ne the next Lebron James, Steve Jobs, cure for cancer. All of these things require resources and a dedicated family. A child born into certain circumstances will have a harder time just getting a basic education. Also, Simone Biles shouldn't be made the face of adoption or foster care. Being adopted by your rich /parents grandparents doesn't represent all of us adoptees. It's rare in foster care. If her parents weren't rich, they wouldn't be able to afford gymnastics as, from what I was told, many foster parents aren't rich. So, using Simone as some kind of argument against abortion and for adoption is gross. Her family simply had the resources to afford such an expensive sport that has nothing to do with adoption. Plus she's with family not strangers. That's different. Plenty of kids currently in foster care many people don't care about.

6. The system is broken. Adoption doesn't mean better life. Some adoptees were abused or even rehomed aka disrupted from their adoptive homes. Many kids enter foster care and go from home to home until aging out. Some adoptees don't have good relationships with their adoptive parents. It's not a one size fits all.

7. Adoption is hard work for both sides. The adoptee and the adopted parent. It's not all sunshine and rainbows. I often feel I'm not good enough. I'm getting married soon and I have doubts of being a good wife and even if I'll be a good mom. Sometimes I don't like being adopted because it was something I didn't chose and it explains why I'm a control freak. Adoption leaves a huge hole in your heart and soul. My own birth mom didn't want me and that will never change. As I get older, it only gets harder.

#adoption #adoptee #adoptive parents #adoptive family #birth family #birthmom #adopted #national adoption awareness month #birth mom #birthmother #abortion #fostercare #fosterkids #Simonebiles

12 notes · View notes

madara-fate · 1 year ago

Note

i think you're being biased with the issue of sakura in boruto. look, it's not the first time an editor or kishimoto's assistants manipulated him into not creating an arc for sakura when he did want to, and it's clear that whoever writes boruto has a problem with her. i don't understand what leads you to say we're wrong without giving any reason, you just dismiss with pictures. i don't think we're being rude, this is a debate and i wanna know your arguments and what makes you think they don't have a thing against certain characters, that's all.

I've had this discussion plenty of times before, and I'm tired of it. Hence my exasperated initial response to the topic. Frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that if Sakura doesn't appear as much as they would like her to, it must be because the authors hate her. Sorry but that's simply ridiculous. Kakashi doesn't appear as often as I'd like him to either, and he very clearly also could have played a bigger role than he's been given, just like Sakura. But does that mean that the authors must hate him? Of course not; it's absurd to automatically conclude that the author(s) must hate a character, just because they don't appear as often as you'd like them to. Kodachi didn't make any implications towards disliking Sakura while he was still part of the team, Ikemoto hasn't made any such implications either, and Kishimoto has only done the opposite when he was full of praises for Sakura, and expressed how joyful and proud he was when she placed 3rd in that popularity poll last year:

I've already given my arguments on the matter plenty of times before, and I've now very briefly done so again here, but that's it, I'm through with this topic and I'm not gonna entertain it any longer. So allow me to say this one final time - If you want to believe that the author hates Sakura, then by all means go ahead, I don't care. Any further asks expressing discontent because of how Sakura is hated by the authors will be ignored. If you wanna talk about that so much, go elsewhere.

#Sakura Haruno #Boruto: Two Blue Vortex #Ukyo Kodachi #Mikio Ikemoto #Masashi Kishimoto

21 notes · View notes

yupimnear · 24 days ago

Text

100 questions.

Controversial

55. What is the meaning of life, and can it be defined as something objectively?

Objectively, no. I think everyone makes their own meaning to their own life. However you decide to live, that is your meaning. There is no one, singular, definition to something that everyone experiences so uniquely.

56. Under what situation would you consider it acceptable to take a human life? In contrast, under what pressure would you willingly sacrifice your own life?

I do not think it is ever truly acceptable to take a life, unless in self-defense or a similar situation. If your own life is at risk and you see no other way to save yourself but to attack and risk the life of an aggressor, then of course you will fight. It's human instinct, though it should still not be taken lightly.

That being said, of course I would risk my own life for many things. I am risking my life currently to catch Kira, after all. For the betterment of humanity, I would, as I think it is my duty to do so. For the betterment of someone I care for, I'd sacrifice myself as well. Though that is easier said than done, of course.

57. What do you personally think is the most difficult part of killing someone? What is so wrong about taking others' lives?

The most difficult part is likely the aftermath. If you have the ability to feel guilty for killing, then you will. Understanding what you've done can be haunting. It is almost never your responsibility to take a life and you shouldn't. But sometimes, it seems as though you are forced to. Still, killing someone means robbing them of their life and forcing grief unto others, including their family, friends, coworkers, and such. You've hurt countless people. It's another reason you yourself don't want to be killed, isn't it?

58. Why do you think the death penalty or Kira killings are right or wrong? Should the death penalty be abolished, why or why not?

I believe both are wrong. On the mere principal of taking a life, both of these ideas are rooted in justice. It is the system's job to protect civilians, not anyone else's. Protection can be done without taking a human life in return. Why is it acceptable to kill a murderer but not to kill an innocent person. Both are people and it is likely that neither of them actively want to die. There are plenty of arguments, certainly. Morality should not be dictated by law.

59. Are there any universal moral principles that you believe apply to all people in all situations? If so, what are they?

Unclear. I'm certain there are plenty of principles that can be applicable in most situations, but perhaps not many or any at all that are applicable in any and every situation.

60. What are your personal morals?

I think I'm fairly clear on my own morals, especially relating to the Kira case and such. There are reasons a judicial system is often made up of so many people. And even more reason that one is often given a trial before decisions about their livelihood are made.

61. Do you always put the shopping cart back when you’re done?

I do not go shopping for myself, but I will answer accordingly anyway. When using a tool given to you essentially for free, for a certain period of time, and for a specific purpose, it is important to return the item in the condition you got it in and the place you got it in. After all, everyone else deserves the tool the same way that you do. It is unfair to others not to allow them the use of this tool after you were allowed it. That being said, it is understandable that sometimes you may be unable to return the tool. In this case, you may request someone else return the tool in your stead so as not to inconvenience someone unwilling.

62. You see a person drop their wallet. What do you do?

Unlikely scenario for me to be in. I will pick up their wallet and call out to them. If they cannot hear me, I will entrust the wallet to one of my agents and have them bring the wallet to the rightful owner.

63. Is it ever OK to lie? If so, under what circumstances?

Yes. It can be difficult to determine, but if the lie is completely for the security of others, then I consider it okay to do so. Still, an unnecessary lie, even to spare someone's feelings, is not okay.

64. What obligations should parents have to their children? And children to their parents?

Children have no obligation to their parents. Parents are obligated to care for their children in the best way they are able to. If they are unable to care for the child properly, then they should consider not having a child, giving their child up for adoption, etc. Parents should be open to learning how to parent, as well. It is not a skill many people have and certainly no one is born with all of the capabilities to be a parent. Parents should accept that their job is difficult, but that it is, in fact, their job to care for their children and is it not at all their children's fault.

65. Is it morally wrong or selfish for people to bring children into this world?

Not necessarily. It certainly can be, though. It is difficult to argue that it is wrong for someone to bring a child into the world, considering the world would not be what it is without humans to populate it. Some people think that a sad existence is better than non existence while others find the opposite to be true. I dislike how my life is at the moment, but I do not blame my mother for this. Not all people think that way. It is especially difficult to determine when many people are pushed to have children without considering their own feelings or abilities to parent. But if you have the choice and understand that you could not be a good parent, but decide to have a child anyone, especially to benefit yourself in some way, then I would consider that selfish.

66. Is corporal punishment bad for children? Why or why not?

I believe this type of punishment usually comes in the form of physical pain. I don't think this is an effective strategy. Many parents use this because it is the easiest way for them to punish their children and also for them to, perhaps, resolve their angry feelings about what their children have done. Parents should be responsible for seeking better ways to teach their children lessons. Physical pain only serves to make children fearful and avoidant of their parents. It is difficult to think about what you did wrong when all you can focus on is the fact that you are in pain and the reason for being in pain is because someone you trusted and loved hurt you.

67. Should Religion be taught to children? Why or why not?

I suppose it is up to personal preference. I think that parents have the right to teach their children about religion and beliefs and even encourage them to take part in their religion. However, it should not be something that is forced on a child. This is another reason many children harbour resentment toward their parental units.

68. Do you have any religious or spiritual beliefs? If you do, then what are they?

Not particularly. I consider myself an atheist, so I don't believe in any religious or spiritual things, really. Though I have witnessed things that have made me question that specific way of thinking. Still, I only truly believe what I have seen or heard from trusted sources and don't plan to take any actions for religious purposes.

69. What do you think happens after death?

Frankly, nothing. Ghosts, reincarnation, and an afterlife are all ideas that I do not believe to be true. I could be wrong of course, but I have seen little proof of that.

#questions & concerns #🤍

3 notes · View notes