#trait simplification

[geopolicraticus]

Friday 06 December 2024

Grand Strategy Newsletter

The View from Oregon – 318

Evolutionary Rollback and Trait Simplification

…in which I discuss Chengjiangocaris kunmingensis, streamlining, evolutionary rollback, trait simplification, reducing complexity, retaining functionality, tiktaalik, snake locomotion, modularity of mind, extended cognition, tragedy of the commons, inexhaustible resources, and On the Beach…

Substack: https://geopolicraticus.substack.com/p/evolutionary-rollback-and-trait-simplification

Medium: https://jnnielsen.medium.com/evolutionary-rollback-and-trait-simplification-5a9792de56c5

Reddit:

[starcurtain]

I wasn't planning to say much of anything about the Phaidei situation in 3.4 because I feel it honestly speaks for itself (like, do I need to say anything here? Look at the feast...), but the way that people are reacting to the scene where Mydei duels Khaslana is kinda rubbing me the wrong way, so I thought I might at least say something about that.

A lot of people seem to have taken this scene as 1) Mydei being weirdly into the idea of being killed by Phainon (the sus English lines from the wiki floating around aren't helping lol); 2) Mydei being weirdly into the idea of dueling period, as if his only wish in life was to die in combat; or 3) Mydei being so down bad for Phainon that he doesn't care about Khaslana being "evil" from the cycles' Chrysos Heirs' perspectives.

But (while I don't debate Mydei is, in fact, down bad for Phainon), I think there's a lot of context possibly being missed here, at least in how people are talking about this scene.

The first key takeaway is that, even 108,642 cycles in, Khaslana was still telling the heirs--or at least was telling Mydei--that Amphoreus was trapped in an unending cycle of the Flame Chase Journey... and the Mydei of cycle 108,642 believes him.

It's clear that Khaslana has even shared the issue occurring with the Destruction and his need to continuously collect the coreflames:

This means that Mydei engaged in this battle with Khaslana knowing the full truth of Amphoreus (or very close to it), knowing at the very least that the safety of the universe relies on Khaslana amassing an extreme amount of power through seizing the coreflames in order to prevent the worst from coming to pass.

It should be clear from that alone exactly why Mydei is willing to support Khaslana's victory: Mydei trusts that Khaslana is telling the truth and actually does need to collect the coreflames of Strife to protect the universe from Destruction.

Mydei is not wishing the Phainon of his cycle eternal victory; he's wishing Khaslana--the one who bears the burden of all Amphoreus--"eternal" victory on Khaslana's quest to prevent Irontomb from manifesting. Every time Khaslana triumphs over Mydeimos, "the Deliverer" is one step closer to his goal of amassing enough power to fight back against Destruction, and thus Mydeimos wishes for Khaslana to continue to win their duels in every life, in every cycle, with the belief that doing so is the righteous choice.

Losing to Khaslana is equal to helping save the world.

In reality, this scene is essentially us the players watching Mydei willingly martyr himself to ensure that Khaslana can continue his endless iterations. RIP to the Phainons of the cycles; Mydei picked Khaslana in every life. Noooo I'm kidding, promiseeee. 😂

Anyway, if it's clear that Mydei both understands Khaslana's need for the coreflames and actually believes his story about the Destruction and Amphoreus's cycles, then why doesn't he just hand the coreflame of Strife over peacefully?

Because that's not who Mydei is. (In any cycle, apparently.)

Despite personal desires to live peacefully and initially not even wanting to take on the coreflame of Strife, Mydei is and has always been a character driven by the concept of duty.

It was out of a sense of duty that he killed his father to avenge his mother:

It was out of duty that he took on the role of the crown prince to lead his people into a better future, even as they fought him every step of the way:

It was out of a sense of duty that he chose to join Aglaea's Flame Chase:

It was out of duty that he ultimately took on the coreflame of Strife despite reviling what it stood for:

It was out of duty he returned to Kremnos knowing that it would be futile mission, and faced Flame Reaver in battle knowing that he would die by the blade:

For Mydeimos, whose entire life was prophesied from the moment of his birth, whose existence has always been dedicated to serving others (even all the way back in the Sea of Souls, saving others while not saving himself), the concept of duty is synonymous with integrity. To fully commit to ones' actions, to faithfully do what one has sworn to do, to stand by one's convictions to the end, and to do what is right for others without flinching, no matter the cost to yourself--this is the core of Mydei's character. (If it sounds similar to the core of Phainon's character, that's obviously no accident.)

Fulfilling your duty, even if it costs your life, is the only form of honorable existence--to a person cursed with immortality, finding meaning in life through unwaveringly upholding one's promises and serving others may be the only reason to keep going.

Mydeimos didn't want the coreflame of Strife (at least ours didn't), but having accepted it and the role of "demigod of Strife," there is no world in which someone who comes with a blade in hand could peacefully take that coreflame from Mydei. Having accepted the title of "the Guardian of Amphoreus," the one who bears the name of Strife to fight back the black tide, the one who carries the pride and history of Kremnos's faith on his shoulders--in no way could Mydei ever hand over his coreflame (his sworn duty to his people, to his fellow Chrysos Heirs, to the world as he knows it).

Honor would simply never allow it.

The duel to the death is simply inevitable, compelled by pride and virtue.

Tiny aside, but since I can hear people thinking it: What about the cycles where the coreflames were acquired peacefully without Khaslana killing the Chrysos Heirs? I am willing to bet my money that Khaslana may have acquired the coreflames of Strife from Nikador in those cycles, not from Mydei (who likely never wanted the coreflame and therefore probably delayed taking it on much longer than other heirs, even in relatively peaceful cycles). We know that even in "peaceful" cycles, Khaslana's method for acquiring the coreflames was often just to kill the titans possessing them before the heirs even came into the picture:

Anyway, even more than the question of honor, integrity, and duty, there is the story's continuing theme of conviction.

We are meant to understand the final duel between Khaslana and Mydei as a mirrored reflection of the original Cycle 0 meeting between Phainon and Mydei.

Facing each other in their first "duel" on the scales, both Mydei and Phainon explicitly stake their convictions:

Mydei places his mother's ring, which is emblematic of the deepest hopes and most central beliefs of his people, their firmly held faith in Strife. Phainon ultimately wins the duel, however, because what he wagers is not the convictions of one person or even one group of people, but the most central conviction of all humanity (including the Kremnoans)--the belief that heroes exist, and the hope in all of us that heroes will save us in our hours of need.

Phainon wins at their first meeting because his conviction contains Mydei's conviction.

Therefore, we must understand Khaslana and Mydei's final clash as simply another duel of whose conviction weighs heavier on the scales.

It doesn't feel like an accident that the architecture of Kremnos's arena even somewhat resembles the body of Talaton's scales:

In the first duel what was at stake was Mydei's role as the Chrysos Heir of Strife, and in the second duel, the stakes are effectively the same: the "prize" being the power of Strife itself.

In both cases, the challenge is not truly about who is stronger or has more combat prowess, but about whose convictions burn brighter, whose goal is more "worthy," and whose duty is more righteous.

Mydei cannot allow Khaslana to take the coreflame of Strife without this "weighing of the heart," without this test to confirm the truth of Khaslana's dedication. He cannot surrender the coreflame without proof of Khaslana being a "worthy" inheritor of Strife, and having the spirit necessary to not only bear the burden but to achieve the ultimate victory Khaslana swears he is fighting for.

The answer to the moral quandary of who is right--the Chrysos Heirs or Khaslana--is simple for Mydei to solve: Khaslana will either prove himself to be just or he will be dead. (Ha ha, speaking of Guilty Gear themes that remind me of Khaslana and Mydei's final struggle, the quote: "In battle, you must observe what lies behind your opponent. If there is a path of retreat, then they may be wise. If there is none, then they have naught to lose. Should you, however, see something they wish to protect, then you best concede that victory." Mydei challenges Khaslana to these duels in every life, every cycle to "see what lies behind" his opponent--whether it is darkness or the light of eventual deliverance.)

This is why it is so key that Khaslana challenge Mydeimos directly to his face, to the point that Mydei says "That's all I ever wanted."

Mydeimos already knows he's going to die. By the time we see him at the end of the 108,642 cycle, he's already the demigod of Strife and aware that he will "die with a wound in his back." The fact that he even took on the Strife coreflame at all in this cycle tells us that his situation with the Kremnoans, whatever it may be in this life, is settled. If he knows that his guaranteed fate is to die by the blade, then to ensure that he dies at the hands of a person's whose convictions burn brighter than the sun, whose convictions literally weigh more than the fate of the world itself, would be the most honorable death possible. To die knowing that he not only upheld his duty to his people and the Chrysos Heirs until his last breath but also managed to aid Khaslana in the even greater quest to protect the universe itself--what could be a more fitting end for a person who spent his whole life in service to others than to serve even in death?

This is why Mydei is able to not only embrace his death at Khaslana's hands but find joy and satisfaction through it. It's not meaningless, empty violence--Strife for Strife's sake, which he has always abhorred--but the clash of pure wills, both standing honorably by what they believe in, the burdens they have sworn to carry. This is why Mydei not only willingly concedes defeat at the end of the battle but invites Khaslana to "crown yourself in my blood"--carry not just the coreflame of Strife with you into the future, but use my very existence to mark your ascendance, as you become the flames that will light the way to dawn.

As has always been the case for Mydeimos: When a cause proves worthy, he will commit himself to it unflinchingly, no matter the cost to himself.

This, of course, is why Flame Reaver deviating from the pattern is such an issue.

At some point in the cycles, Khaslana stopped challenging Mydei to honorable duels and instead started using sneak attacks, targeting his weak point with underhanded tactics and refusing (or just unable) to explain his reasons.

This, more than anything else in patch 3.4, is the true sign of the extent of Flame Reaver's descent and degradation. Khaslana, by the point he becomes Flame Reaver, can no longer display honor, can no longer bear his duty with dignity and purity of conscience--his blade no longer communicates the convictions he carries. Now he conveys only the scent of endless death.

Mydei in the Cycle 0 memory isn't just mad he was cheated out of a fair fight--he's mad that he died not knowing whether his ultimate death had any meaning, whether it truly aided the Flame Chase Journey, or whether there was any sense behind the losses they all suffered along the way. To die by the hand of a dishonorable person whose convictions seemingly lacked integrity--a miserable end to a miserable life, one that haunts Mydei even in lingering memories after the end of the world as he knew it.

So yeah, do I think Mydei enjoys dueling Khaslana at the absolute pinnacle of their abilities? Definitely. Do I think he's criminally biased toward finding Khaslana's convictions worthy because he's in love with Phainon, no matter what life or form? Yup, sure do. Do I think that, at his deepest, Mydei still can't escape the core tenets of Kremnoan belief, finding virtue in being willing to go to war for the purposes of securing peace? Check and check.

But I wish more people would look past the "Ha ha Mydei kinda freaky, isn't he?" coming from this scene in order to understand what that moment was really doing in terms of both Mydei and Khaslana's characterization: demonstrating that Mydei's sacrificial nature has and will always extend to what he believes is the greatest good, and that even 108,642 cycles in, at the very least, Khaslana maintained his convictions unshakably, convincing even the ferocious demigod of Strife to entrust the future to him hundreds of thousands of times, something Khaslana seemed to have already given up on with the other heirs thousands of cycles earlier.

This scene perfectly encapsulates 3.4's theme of having the strength to bear impossible burdens for the sake of what you truly believe in, and ends by putting Khaslana and Mydei firmly on the same side of the scales.

[darcyolsson]

listened to the last dinner party's album after putting it off for a very long time and there's this discussion of gender which essentially comes down to "i wish i were a man, but only for the mindless privilege that comes with it" and i'm not sure why i find that so refreshing to hear but i do. i guess it's because in the last 10-ish years society at large went from girlboss feminism to regressing to more conservative values yet in both situations saying "i wish i were a man" has been unacceptable because you're expected to take pride in the fact that you're a woman (either because "girls and boys are the same, no need to be a man, girls can do anything!" or because "men and women are fundamentally different, you need to nurture your femininity!") so it's strangely fascinating to hear someone flat-out say "being a man would be simpler" even if it's not a new take at all but rather like. literally feminism baby step number 1.

[yeehawpurgatory]

Listen, I know this might sound untrue, but Arthur IS mostly a bad dude—or at least not as good a man as some claim. (I love him still but hear me out)

This is not me arguing “he’s bad so you shouldn’t like/glorify him” at all, I promise—I can’t stand that rhetoric. It’s just that I see a lot of “he’s so kind” “so good at heart” “so hard on himself” and I wonder why folks so often adamantly, un-ironically claim him as a misunderstood gentle giant type.

The fact that he’s mostly nice to those he cares about and is willing to help strangers in need (never mind both of those things are optional anyhow, you can just as easily play him as an asshole who doesn’t come to anyone’s aid—) doesn’t undo the harm he’s responsible for throughout the game. Nor does him being told to do so by an authority or being a victim of circumstance undo it.

His good doesn’t make up for his bad, and I don’t think it actually needs to. His bad certainly doesn’t take away from what makes him compelling and likeable to the audience; but within the context of his world, he’s right to be unhappy with who he is. It’s not a matter of low self esteem or self worth issues, his unhappiness with himself comes from self awareness.

(Saying this with a grain of salt because you know, fictional character with no real agency whose actions are as such for plot reasons), he may have had a shit hand dealt to him, but he’s a person who makes bad choices. He’s charming and relatable (and hot lol) but I’m not sure I understand the whole simplifying his character to “good person stuck in bad situation” thing, when it plainly isn’t the case, no matter how much we like him.

I think the “you’re a good man Arthur” line gets thrown around as proof of him being good at heart; but I think it’s more like, he needed to hear it to act as such. He needed to be told how to be good and pushed into reflection and immediate actions. He needed to be told that he’s a good man by others because he needed permission in a sense to be different than he knows himself to be. (Take a shot every-time I say good)

“The Thomas Downes mission was out of character” it really isn’t. He says what kind of man he is multiple times, he hammers the point home that he’s a bad man. And while there is definitely a bit of self loathing in that sentiment, he’s still speaking his truth. He’s just unhappy with it; he IS the type of man to commit an atrocity like beating a dying man for a few bucks. It goes against the beliefs fans have projected onto him, usually coming from their own moral compass instead of what the character shows his own to be, and that’s why it ‘feels so wrong’ to see him doing something actually despicable.

We arrive at this misunderstanding due to fandom projection, as well as this rampant desire to problem solve by ‘fixing’ the canon material to fit a sort of agenda. Ie, ‘I only like the good attributes in this character’ ‘it’s only acceptable to like this bad dude provided he’s always feeling guilt for his actions’ or ‘he’s not really at fault for them.’

But the thing is, even if Arthur is at conflict with his actions, the guilt he may feel isn’t an indication of anything pure within him. He’s in total control and chooses still to go along with everything. I tend to think an action done in guilt is functionally the same as an action done with enjoyment. Arthur feeling bad at the end of the game for his faults and complicity doesn’t mean he is good. Nor does it mean he ‘was a good the whole time’, nor does it excuse what he’s done.

We don’t have to make him a better person than he is in order to like him, is what I’m trying to say I guess. It’s fine to acknowledge all parts of him, to do otherwise does a disservice to his character as it often flattens them beyond recognition. And it’s also fine to hone in on what you appreciate most and write and draw and celebrate that while functionally ignoring the rest if you so choose—but it’s also fine (and usually important) to acknowledge who the character is without the plethora of projections placed upon them.

Arthur ends the game with a loving act, more or less saving John, saving Abigail, Tilly, paving the way for them to become something better than he was. None of these things are meant to be a great action done to save his soul or redeem him in any eyes, especially not his own. He dies on a good note (and yeah I would say low honour/back for the money is still a ‘good’ choice for a low honour story), and shifts his focus to the last good deed he’s done in his final moment as a way to leave off peacefully despite all his wrongdoings. He doesn’t get redemption really, and he doesn't wholly achieve 'goodness', despite all the potential for growth the audience can see in him, that’s the deliberate tragedy of it all.

[twilightofthesandwiches]

There’s a lot of stuff in Deltarune, especially Ralsei’s arc, that is, I think, kind of an exploration/critique of common Video Game tropes about Player Character-NPCs friendships. Mainly the simplification of good/bad options in friendship progression and the concept of the blank-slate protagonist in the context of video game friendships.

I mean, that whole thing of having a Player Character being a stand-in for the Player and so building friendships in-game is much more focused on flashing out the NPCs and making them lovable to the Player. While explaining which traits in the Player Character the NPCs likes or what they would like to do together is given less focus and a lot more ambiguity. Because… well… that character needs to stand in for any person ever who plays the game and they need to feel like this character likes them whatever their individual traits may be. As well as how this whole thing interacts with choices. Like gamifying the idea of friendship into just picking the nicest and most pleasing and placating option until you ‘win’ the status of being friends with them.

Like, that’s also kind of a thing in Undertale (as certain elements in Deltarune are based on or built on the audience response to Undertale). I hardly think it’s a detriment to that game, to me it’s more of a thing of “a game can’t be Everything at Once. Part of Undertale’s greatness is that it knows what it wants to focus on”. But many fans have already poked fun at how, because the idea of Frisk not being a total Blank-Slate-Self-Insert is actually kind of a twist - most of the other characters’ friendships with Frisk involve these wonderfully-written fully-rounded adults trauma-dumping on this silent blank child and then going “Wow you’re such a great friend, I’m so happy you’re here to support me!”

Papyrus’ character was already kinda a Tounge-in-Cheek acknowledgement of the absurdity of the situation. A Guy who is both extremely self-absorbed and extremely wholesome to such an absurd degree that he basically cannot help himself but befriend you, no matter what you do (I mean, unless you kill him)

And I think a lot of Ralsei’s arc in Deltarune, in the ways he relate to Susie and Kris, is meant as a more serious exploration of these tropes.

Because Ralsei starts out with a very… video-gamey idea of how friendship works. He thinks that it’s just about being nice and making sure others are happy

And is shocked to realize how much he appreciates Susie, a person who… if she was the Player, she would absolutely not be choosing the nicest most placating choice each time. She can be a bit prickly and abrasive…. but it doesn’t actually diminish of his fondness of her.

Because, you know, that’s what actual real-life friendships are like.

And yet Ralsei is still surprised to learn that the same is true of him. That his friends also don’t demand just generic niceness, placating comments and gifts from him - they like his personality, not a blank slate. That’s the important part.

And, of course, that also connects with the whole thing of Choices That Don’t Matter and the disconnect between Player and Player Character. While Frisk being their own independent person that you had to leave to have a happy life with their friends is kind of a Twist in Undertale, we know Kris is their own person from pretty early on.

So first of all that creates more situations where despite our control Kris can let their unique personality shine through regardless. Kris’ friendships feel real because Kris is a person separate from the Player who therefore has their own personality that their friends like.

Plus, like with Susie, Kris isn’t necessarily the nicest and most accommodating person. They’re kind of an Edgelord WeirdEnby, so the interactions that show their personality and endears them to their friend often stands in contrast to the nicey accommodating tone of a Player trying to always choose the ‘Good’ option.

Sometimes the ‘right’ answer with Kris isn’t the nicest one, even when they’re with their friends. Because they like Kris, and that kinda comes pre-packaged with a little bit of emotionally-detached teasing.

And our choices don’t really matter, because outside of the Total Terror that is the Weird Route, the Player can’t really choose in a way that changes Kris’ relationships. They will rebel against words that are too cruel or too saccharine for them.

And the actions they take on their own will always be the most important to the development of their friendships.

It’s kind of the most heartwarming twist Deltarune has on the idea of ‘Your Choices Don’t Matter’. Your choices don’t matter because when it comes to friendship, Kris’ personality will always triumph over your choices.

And of course, the general conceit of Deltarune makes the idea of an NPC liking the Player over the personality of the Player Character to be an especially chilling conceit. It makes people inherently more open to the idea because the alternative feels like such a grim concept in-universe. This is one case I am very thankful my choices don't matter and I would like it to continue that way!

[crazysodomite]

you can just say you dont like a certain stylization but i find it extremely insulting when people seemingly dont understand the basic concept of stylization and simplification and exaggeration and call people lazy or imply someone is making up for lack of skill with stylization. i mean first of all to stylize and make stylized art is a skill in and of itself. yes even that one popular art style you dont like takes skill.

its like no actually i can draw a realistic hand with fingernails proper anatomy of the joints and all. but i stylize it because i want to. not because im lazy or i lack skill. and even if someone can only draw stylized/cartoony/simple/abstract art its not an indication of lack of skill.

someone drawing a specific trait unrealistically and exaggerating it isnt a sign of laziness or not being able to portray it in a fully realistic way. woe... someone who has an artstyle with dynamic pointy bold lines and unrealistic bright colors has Exaggerated Something in their art... nobody knows how to draw anymore!

umm where are her fingers and feet? its really obvious the artist doesnt know how to draw so they lazily simplified everything lmfao look at her eyes theyre literally just dots. not how eyes look like. they didnt even bother to add shading. this is why i dont even wanna look at art online anymore its embarrassing lmfao and people eat this up 😂 maybe dont be lazy and learn how to draw before posting

[creantzy]

Defying God - a parallel between Fyolai and Stavrovensky

The Demons brainrot is taking over, and you know what happens when I acquire a new interest: my brain WILL find a way to connect it to my other interests, whether I like it or not!! And this is essentially what it's about xD I've come here to present a parallel I found between Fyolai (Fyodor & Nikolai from BSD) and Stavrovensky (Verkhovensky & Stavrogin from "Demons" by Dostoevsky). Before I start I want to clarify a few things:

• I don't think these two pairings are similar, I just love picking up any crumbs of connections I can find between my interests, even if it'd count as reaching.

• This interpretation (in either character's case) is in no way "the only true way of looking at it". It's merely one interpretation out of many and I chose to focus on just a few aspects out of the many others there are to explore in these complex characters. 

• Feel free to add onto or disagree with anything I say! I'm interested in your thoughts :D

WARNING: There will be spoilers for Bungou Stray Dogs and Demons.

The reason Nikolai wants to kill Fyodor is because he feels affection for him. Emotions are a prison to him, and he basically seeks the opposite of what his emotions make him want to do. Thus, in the face of affection, which makes you want to be closer and wish the best for your friend, he does the opposite and decides to kill said friend, going directly against his feelings in an attempt to prove free will. But here I want to focus more on the "You want to defy God in order to lose sight of yourself" part, specifically the bit about God.

One part of my interpretation is that Nikolai associates God with control. If there is a God who controls all, how can there be a free will? He wants to go against Him and His creations (the human mind, morality, etc.) to prove that it's possible. But God is very abstract - the idea of God is influential but varies depending on cultures, etc. For this point, I'll use the example of the biblical God, or, more specifically, some attributes commonly assigned to the idea of God:

• omnipotence (all-powerful)

• omnipresence (all-present)

• omniscience (all-knowing)

What I am leading up to is the fact that these traits can, in one way or another, be applied to Fyodor. Fyodor's character represents everything Nikolai wants to defy. Nikolai hates control; he wants to fight the idea of God and prove the possibility of complete independence. Fyodor (though not in a "direct" way) could be seen as a symbol for God. He knows everything, he is always present (metaphorically and sometimes literally, the way he spawns sometimes I swear-), and he seems to control everything. Only few people actually see him, but he pulls the strings behind the scenes, and his power is felt everywhere. For Nikolai, to kill Fyodor is not just a protest against his feelings of affection, but can also be a symbolic act of defying "God", of killing "God", by killing Fyodor.

This is supposed to be very symbolic and not taken literally. I feel the need to repeat this because I personally dislike the notion of Fyodor as a literal God (and disagree with the idea of him having a God-complex), so this is merely about the God-like traits he possesses, like a "substitute" for the idea of God, and how it interacts with Nikolai's philosophy. (I've also exaggerated some points for the sake of simplification - for example, I don't actually believe Fyodor is in control of absolutely everything, etc.)

Moving onto Demons:

Pyotr Verkhovensky grew up religious and (assuming based on Stepan's description) with a fear of God.

Now he's an atheist and very anti-religious. He plans to overthrow society, and destroying religion + everything it preaches is part of that plan. But interestingly enough, he picks not himself as the official future "ruler", but someone else: Nikolai Stavrogin. He chooses Stavrogin to be the role of the leader in Verkhovensky's ideal society. But not exactly the "leader" in the traditional sense, because he wouldn't necessarily give Stavrogin all the power. He would simply use him as a "pawn" (for lack of a better word) while himself pulling the strings behind said society. With that, Verkhovensky puts someone else above himself, in a God-like position, but he wants to do it while still keeping full control over Stavrogin. By doing so, he would overcome his childhood fear of God because instead of being controlled by God, *he* will control God.

(Same case here, not the literal God, but the character who he assigns God-like traits to.)

I am undecided (with both Nikolai's and Verkhovensky's character) whether this could be read as a solely subconscious intention or if it would make sense as a conscious one as well. Given that both have a different "main" goal (Nikolai focuses on emotions and Verkhovensky on the revolution) I lean more towards thinking it's subconscious (if present at all - like I said, just interpretations!)

It doesn't help that Verkhovensky describes his vision of Stavrogin's leadership as "hidden": Everyone believes in him and his power, but only very few people are said to actually have laid their eyes upon him. When I first read this part, I was honestly reminded of Big Brother from Orwell's 1984, but eventually realised that similar things can be said about God as well.

While these are parallels, they don't come without differences. Nikolai needs Fyodor dead, Verkhovensky needs Stavrogin alive. Nikolai wants to kill Fyodor for a sense of freedom, Verkhovensky wants to keep Stavrogin for a sense of control. Yet both symbolic goals are bound to fail:

Fyodor turns out to be unkillable, and Stavrogin ends up dead.

At the end, "God" stays untouchable.

[archive-professional-jaywalker]

Avian Expectations

A small essay about the difference between the pop culture Bird and being a bird.

Being a bird is probably one of the most romanced identity. Being a bird means nothing, behavior wise, scientifically. Yet, being a bird portrays something very specific into people's mind.

Being a bird is freedom. It's effortless flight, belonging to the realm of air and never wanting to touch ground again. Being a bird is adventure, migration. A good half of movies about birds are about overcoming the thrilling dangers of going over entire continents in one year, the reward of seeing an exotic haven far from the cold. Sometimes, being a bird is being a strange endearing critter, voice mimicry, stealing shiny things, cuddling up and preening one's flock. Other times, being a bird is a sharp beak and sharper claws and being the Predator from Above, undefeated in the heights.

I've seen a lot of people question birds with that idea of a bird in mind. And, clearly, it can be true. One bird I know is migratory to her very core, the pull of Africa leading her to travel, irresistible. Another deeply intertwined with the drop of gravity as it's ultimate strength, entire biology built to master it.

But I cannot relate to people who go into questioning bird from the perspective of the Pop Culture Bird Homonculus, of this chimera of all the Cool Bird Traits. It seems like a fictional character to me, without all the little details that make being a bird real. Perhaps it is because I break all of these core traits.

I do not fly well, I glide when I must, and more often I run. I much prefer the ground. I am not migratory, and one part of being a roadrunner to me is Territory, and Surviving winter. I've never had the luxury of fleeing the cold, as much as i dislike it. I do not mimic all that much, I am solitary, I hunt by running along the grass. Barely bird, in the eye of the Being a Bird rules.

Rules say, then, i should not relate to being a bird. perhaps being a roadrunner for me would be akin to coyotes. Perhaps it would be akin to cats. But no, i do in fact relate to birds.

As it turns out, there is still a strong difference, for me, between the Being A Bird non-birds imagine and the actual one. I don't fly, i glide, i struggle to get to heights. A heavy sea eagle responded, saying how they felt flight as tool, from perch to perch, to scan for prey, too costly to waste in play.

I say that i hunt on foot, that i do not relate to the dive of the kestrel or the flight of the swift. A burrowing owl answer; saying they too prefer hunting grasshoppers from their height, sometimes perching but often just lurking around the grass.

I say i am alone, i do not have a flock, and a heron responds, why should you ? You are fine on your own.

I have met flightless cormorants, I have met penguins. On the contrary, I have met falcons, I have met corvids. The shapes of birdhood shift and change, but in the end, I tend to find someone for each things, be it bird like or not. Bird is a wide ground. Bird is a simplification, so that others can understand a flawed but easy view.

I am not A Bird, by pop culture definition. Yet i am very much a bird who relates to beings extremely far from me, behaviorally. honestly there's a point of no explanation. I share phantom feathers with them and beaks, but i couldn't be further from a hummingbird. It's a strange conundrum. So close yet so far, every species that talks about it. always slivers of Me-Truth, always things i just gloss over. a bird is not an animal, its a concept. i wish people would take that in account more before diving in it.

[unsolicited-opinions]

Understanding Propaganda

(Signal > Noise: Bite-Sized Media Literacy)

Words mean things. Specific things.

Propaganda isn't another word for lies.

Propaganda isn't goose-stepping fascists or shadowy intelligence agencies.

Propaganda is the strategic use of communication to influence public opinion, emotion, or behavior in service of a specific agenda.

That agenda might be political, religious, ideological, or commercial...but the goal is always control. Control of what you think, what you feel, and what you do.

Propaganda simplifies and flattens complex issues into simple ones, frames narratives to benefit one side, and appeals to emotion over critical reasoning.

It often uses half-truths, selective data, and identity-driven language to bind you to a group... or drive you away from another.

Propaganda can be subtle (a meme) or grand (a political speech). It can use truth, falsity, or a carefully curated mix.

The defining feature of propaganda is intent: it's trying to shape your reality.

Propaganda Techniques

Most propaganda includes some combination of the following:

Appeal to emotion (fear, pride, outrage, belonging)

Simplification (good vs. evil, us vs. them)

Repetition (if you hear it enough, it must be true)

Selective framing (leaving inconvenient facts out)

Authority signals (fonts, uniforms, aesthetics)

Audience targeting (different messages for different groups)

Propaganda isn't just about convincing, it's about conditioning. It aims to create reflexive responses so you feel the truth of something before you even start to think about it.

How Propaganda Is Different From...

Education: Education aims to expand your understanding, even when the truth is uncomfortable or complicated. Propaganda narrows it down to what you're supposed to believe. Both education and propaganda are preached by university instructors.

Persuasion: Ethical persuasion presents arguments and evidence, respects autonomy, and invites dialogue. Propaganda bypasses rational engagement and pressures conformity.

Marketing: Marketing promotes products or services, often with exaggeration but rarely claiming moral urgency. Propaganda sells a worldview, often with existential stakes.

Why It Works

Humans are:

Tribal

Emotional

Cognitively lazy

We like stories - narratives make sense out of chaos.

We like certainty

We don't like feeling out of step with our peers.

Propaganda hijacks these universal and unavoidable traits of the human animal.

It's effective because those who generate it understand these vulnerabilities.

Understanding propaganda means seeing it not just as deception, but as a mirror held up to our psychology.

One last thing you must understand about propaganda:

Propaganda has gotten more and more powerful with each media revolution. The printing press, broadcast radio, television, the internet. Each media revolution has captured more and more attention from its consumers.

The more power a medium has over attention, the more dangerous propaganda becomes within it.

We now live in an age of pervasive social media within an attention economy.

What does that tell you about how vulnerable we are?

What does it tell you about the relative vulnerabilities of various generations based on which mass media they were exposed to?

Above: From Ferb Latin. I nearly choked with laughter when I saw this episode.

More:

More #Signal > Noise

I am not immune to propaganda

Bias≠Lying

Feelings don't care about your facts

[xenineshroom]

Misunderstanding of the term, "autism spectrum," and misunderstanding of trans oppression actually have a lot in common. Without getting too deep into it, people often think autism falls on a binary from least to most oppressed when really it's more like a pie chart with different traits which may present differing or increased challenge in certain areas of life, some visible and some invisible.

Trans oppression is a lot like that. Trying to net all of trans experience into "easier," and "harder," will always be a gross over-simplification that relies on a worldview where violence against a minority can be quantified easily and broken down into a binary. Every model obscures information, but this one instead simply omits most information about both parties, both those who're framed as having it "worse," and those framed as having it "better." This also stretches out to trans parties outside the two, and those being misgendered by their recategorization into the binary.

In reality, there is variation in which places different groups of trans people need help in. There is no way to assure the correct help is given out or the correct issues are addressed when the nuance is stripped from these issues. Different groups of trans people have different points of vulnerability and it will always be inappropriate to pull out one statistic about sexual assault, or one about pay, or one about medical discrimination and treat it as the end all be all answer to who is most oppressed. The simple question of who has it worse will always fall short of actually addressing the needs of any community.

Some easy sources on this topic are the Trevor Project, the "Health and Wellbeing: A Report of the 2022 Transgender Survey," also the UK's 2018 "National LGBT Survey" or this helpful breakdown of the information inside the UK survey. We all have different vulnerabilities, and there is not only room, but need for nuance in discussions of this issue.

[imaginariumwanderer]

So with Ep 10 out what are your thoughts and opinions?

Ep 10 might be the best beast yeast ep ever baring ep 8, I actually can't decide which is my no 1 as they're both absolutely fantastic. Warning: ep10-11 spoilers, the post got way too long so I'm putting undercut, there's also ship talk which um, yup, abandon hope ye who enter:

About ships:

I'm putting this first to get it out of the way... It's canon, it's actually canon guys no more denying it alright. BxA fans keep on winning as always, some joke about it but I seriously won't be surprised if salt does straight up proposed to wl once it's their turn. Honestly I can't believe how blatant they went with it. The pride month post, the costume, everything about esugar and holly's relationship EVERYTHING. Esugar even called holly "my love" several times, as least in her costume if I remember right.

Wedding confirmed, right on time for June too ty devsis!!

Ok ok I jest, still, ppl would argue it's one-sided therefore non canon but I would argue affections being explicitly confirmed in one party is a pretty big deal in of itself. Holly on her part accepted esugar n even agreed to be her other half, now if only esugar agreed to stop trapping ppl in jars.

That said, I'm really hoping players won't go out of their way to scream "fanservice" at the story, I've seen this happen w smilk's update. It's sad seeing fans dismiss good writing as yaoi or yuri bait when the beasts' wish to keep their ancients close play a big role in their characters. That said I don't want non-shipper to feel forced into liking BxA or even admit they're canon, I just want them to leave shippers alone ok since it's clear BxA didn't come outta nowhere, don't dismiss the writing when it's clear the writers DID puts efforts into it.

No more "b-but it make no sense, they only wanted the souljam!" ok it may apply to mflour but esugar does not give a single fuck, she won't take the souljam at least not by force. We have in-game dialogues of her confirming it, I need people to stop saying they only wanted the souljam since that's not only untrue but is an active simplification of their motivations!

About our beast/ancient duo:

A couple of Hollyberry scenes almost make me cry... It's great, it's amazing, beast-yeast partly serve as a revisit to the ancients' characters so having the story digs into her past was everything I needed. Sad dcacao-goldie didn't get the same treatment, we can only hope they get a revisit one day. Dunno if this is controversial but- while the game now confirmed hollyberry does have a drinking problem. I don't want fans to flanderize n make it holly's only trait, we do know she have a problem but we can assume the severity of it does fluctuates, we've seen several instances of holly's drinking n not all of them are shown in a bad light. Compared to, let's say, her Triumph of Sloth costume which arguably is holly at her worst mental-wise n have her dialogues mention drinking several times. In short, I just hope fans would depict these subjects w the nuances they needed. The same thing apply to pv's eating disorder that's, while the game did hint at, is still unconfirmed n only a headcanon as of now. The fandom have a problem with misinformation+taking theory/headcanon as canon in general tbh.

I really enjoyed the revelation about holly's empty heart, the story did touched on the survival-guilt she got after the dark flour war before n I'm so glad it is brought up again. Holly avoiding love in general does track w her attitude toward royal magarine's flirting n her cake hound decor lol. As explained in her awakened's description she cloaked a shield around herself, so much that she didn't noticed the cracks forming within.

Cookie run mostly focused on platonic relationship but this time we got romantic love playing its role as one of the extra themes within the story. Royal berry+jungleberry cookie are one of the few married/explicitly romantic/not one-sided couples within cookie run lore. To get a bit personal here, I find it way too relatable seeing pavlova (being the cookie ver of eros/cupid/romantic love) constantly telling holly she'll be happy once she accepted love into her heart. And the implication that holly is deliberately ignoring the affections of those around her. It's a revelation I find endlessly interesting. Note, despite her Awakening along w accepting pain as something one have to face in life, her "empty heart" has yet to have a 100% resolution. I kinda like how all of the ancients still have unresolved issues despite their Awakening, cacao not yet reuniting w choco, goldie not yet recovering her kingdom, vani and his 99+ problems... And damn what did holly meant by "I've learned from experience"?? My celibate queen who hurt you?...

She's just like me fr

Also, the reveal that hollyberry did resented wl make me tweak. Here we though the ancients sans goldie was too forgiving but turned out the truth is far more complicated. Good stuff. (the gang have no idea how insane I am about this one line)

Weirdly enough I'm not as attached to esugar as I am w the other beasts. Before the update she's my 2nd beast based on design alone but after reading the story, um, she might be my 4th writing-wise. It's a matter of personal opinion, her story is still incredibly well-written all things considered. I just don't vibe w her like I do the rest of the beast ig?? (Current ranking for anyone wondering: 1st mflour; 2nd smilk; 3rd spice; 4th esugar; salt is undecided)

I am thriving so, SO hard w this ep. That scene near the end where we can only hear esugar's voice, the godly choir in the bgm n sugarfly screaming her heart out in terror. Peak, so so PEAK. The "don't leave" scene was sooo fire, someone made a dub compilations of it, my favs are the English n Taiwanese dub. Some of the voice actresses were screaming their lines at the end of it, peak. That one sprite of hers might be the most terrifying thing the artists over at devsis put out yet I need moreeee. Hoping smilk's new sprites (and he WILL get new sprites not even a prophecy we all know he's the game's darling by now-) managed to outdo this cause that one motivated sprite of his doesn't do it for me tbh. The one where he broke his own neck is close but still kinda eh. Do note how exhausted esugar look here.

My preciousss Spice currently hold the "most sprites that give me the heebie-jeebies" award

I'm kinda sad holly's "ancients psycho-analyze the beasts" speech isn't much of a speech but a couple of short revelations. Esugar's wish to grant cookiekind's happiness is genuine, confirmed, she deluded herself into believing hardship is a unnecessary thing in life, confirmed. Ok it's esugar's reaction to the whole ordeal that's interesting to me. Esugar just zeroing on the fact holly came back for her- will she actually consider the words holly said or not place ur bet now everyone. Esugar being a denial queen does tracks w her theme of sloth, it's running away from pain both physical n mental. Pretending everything is fine (webtoon reference)

I like how at the end esugar insists on decorating her garden for when holly returns despite the garden being the problem in the first place. She's so distracted by her own delusions that she can't recognize pavlova's misery despite him standing right beside her. Not story-related, but another aspect of sloth is when one stopped caring about anything around them, esugar display this aspect in the bond costume. Once she achieved everything she wanted, neither cookies' happiness nor the garden is of any concern to her, all she cares about is staying beside her beloved other half. Did I mentioned she wanted holly? Cuz she wanted that cookie baddd. But it's not just that, holly is the representation of passion. Is it by keeping passion locked within her garden that esugar proved her ideology is the right one. That the happiness she has nurtured for so long is "correct."

>About the supporting cast

Pavlova cookie may ended up being my favorite beast follower, ough, but nutmeg tiger... I can't choose... "Sidekick who's done w their boss' shit" is one of my fav archetype. I'm so glad we got pavlova for that, he's what I expected black sapphire to be tbh. Maybe it's cuz he hits my niche but pavlova's story throughout the ep have been one of the most intensive character development we've got for the beast follower trope. I seriously hope we see more of him, his potential are a-plenty, being the only follower so far who's unhappy w his current disposition. (Current ranking: 1st pavlova/nutmeg I can't decide ok; 2nd the deceitlings; 3rd sugarfly; 4th cloud haetae)

We might see more of sugarfly tho, seeing as she'll be returning to the faerie's kingdom. That scene of her breaking off the sugar coating was beautiful, I like how the game presented it. It's not boom she's able to insta fly again, her wings are permanently messed up after not being in use for so long. There's true beauty in that. Both sugarfly and pavlova ended up going through a transformation in the end. To talk about them though, s*garlova eh? Fitting the update of passion gave us 2 peak af ships, but I only like s*galova as one-sided haha... Let's be real here pavlova treated sugarfly pretty bad😭 He spends all of their interactions pilling his work onto her then/and insulting her for being compliant. It's projections n him secretly being mad she's trapped like him, but feelings are not actions, did he ever do or say anything nice directly to her? Idk. Lil guy just have this love/hate envy/admiration mess of emotions toward sugarfly while my girl be out there living her best life. Again, so much potential here, once they met again they'll be at the opposite side of war. What will their interaction be like?

One of the biggest problems cookie run faced is their large cast. With "large" being an understatement... Most of the time the characters aren't utilized well/ ended up being under-used or misused. Ep 5-6 is the best of the best in term of utilizing characters for reasons I'll elaborate on another day. I'm impressed with how the writers managed to juggles so many characters this time around. Rasberry, wild berry etc etc all got their moments. N the illusion at the end left quite an impact despite holly's loved ones appearing for one dialogue box at most. All in all, I'm quite satisfied with how ep 10 turned out despite tiger lily being the only side cookie that got properly explored imo. My only nitpick is I wish the game presented clearer reasons as to *why* the hollyberians wanted to return to the kingdom. Blueberry wanted to leave cuz the place is gross I think? Funniest thing ever.

Just for fun: cookie run have a thing for yearner x wanderer dynamics. One will just be out there living their life while the other yearns for them, one tend to have some kind of emotional constipation toward the other, they are hinted to may or may not reunite once again. From the top of my head- lord oyster -> black/white pearl (low-tier since one of them is DEAD), pv -> lily, the blue one-> pv, can apply to all BxA ships tbh, sea fairy -> moonlight cookie (the yearning r heavily implied to be mutual in this case), cotton -> sherbet (the yearnings r also heavily mutual, not as much as seam*on tho), now we got pavlova -> sugarfly (New!)

>About... The Azure one... Actually the smilk cameo wasn't that bad all thing considered. I wish they didn't put him in the title screen though consider he's only in the ep for a single scene, there's some debates on how much smilk's advice played a part in esugar's downfall, but eh. They knew what they were doing putting him there, they managed to pull fans coming in to see smilk so that's a win ig.

Ok I'm hoping it's not pure vanilla for once c'mon. Might have to do a poll on this...

Anyways, IN STORY BEAST INTERACTION IN STORY BEAST INTERACTION AAAA. This lil scene gave us so much tidbits into esugar/smilk's relationship I love it! Esugar appeared very cautious around smilk, yet she never denied her fellow beast the berries. Smilk once again is scheming sth as smilk do. I won't lie I did miss this casually cackling clown. The passive-aggressiveness, smilk giving advice leaving us to wonder if it's sincere or not. Back when the beasts got revealed fans locked in(tm) n shadow-sugar got the most fanart ship or otherwise. It's still unbelievable to me they're the first beasts duo to get an actual direct interaction in-story. I wonder if it's sth that's added in due to the fandom or sth that the writers already planned n the fans r just that in-tuned. I'm willing to bet the former seeing as the sh*dowsugar fans r not, mm, happy w their canon dynamic. Again the amount of "yuri bait"/"they ruined esugar's character" discourse gave me a headache (I have to emphasize some, only SOME shippers do, all the sane sh*dowsugar fans I wish u a very good day). Gang we all know the beasts mostly don't like each other just by their battle dialogue by now. Everyone, ship what u want, I'm just praying we won't have anymore blowups when it turned out... Idk spice doesn't care for smilk or sth along those lines.

Side note: smilk/lady azure casually brought up killing cookies for fun in that scene, I got told some fans r actually shocked about that?? I'm sorry but did we read the same story😭 that mf killed off a named character in the INTRO of beast-yeast. Attempted to murder cookies, some included KIDS, several times. Scratch that it's not even an attempt, smilk *did* pushed the gingergang off the spire just for giggles bro. Ik the fandom woobified the clown but for some to collectively forget his crime(s) is, wow- even when lady azure is just standing there the writers have to drive home the amount of crimes this mf has committed, every new smilk appearance is a new crime added to the list it's so funny asdfghj

I used the jp voice-over for this update, funfact esugar straight up called him "gross" in the dub. Talking about it though, I'm insane absolutely insaneee about the way the jp voice actress managed to replicate Toriumi-san's speech pattern, even his iconic "KHEHEHE" laugh. Her voice was so amazingly, wonderfully deep n villainous it feel like my beloved Beatrice is back by my side again.

>Other miscellaneous thoughts

-Not ep 10 related but I'm seriously insane about the costume, not only is it yuriful but it's the closest we'll ever get to a "beasts win" AU, one let down is we have no intel on the other beasts since the focus is on these two. The story said holly have no foes to protect the garden from so I'm guessing they left the garden alone or is somehow incapacitated. Some of holly's dialogues are so sad, n looking back it's disturbing how many times she mentioned berry juice, also, "her voice… is my paradise" "my heart feels at peace around… her…" bro, bro? Brooo aa aaah hold me bro ough...

-Alongside happiness n love there's also the theme of parenthood, that scene when tiger lily calms her crying dad by giving him berries.. Can make a grown man cry tbh. We were so close to a family reunion, what a fool I am, for thinking the game might finally resolve a plot thread. Truly we're all fools, gotta wait 5+ more years for it.

-Rip "silent salt is elder faerie" theory it was fun while it lasted (or did it...?) So much details in one image. I'll take whatever ef official art I can get. Interestingly enough ef represented the moon here while the guest resemble the sun w their golden halo. Ef have vines n foliage which is wl's motif not his, the foliage here doesn't resemble the silver tree's branches either. Hm... While the guest have three claw marks ripping them apart. Must this be silent salt? The majority of the fandom agreed so. I'm curious what everyone else's theory is.

[rockrosethistle]

Workin Boys was literally the only thing that saved Hidgens from being flanderized beyond recognition

(Spoilers for Workin' Boys)

So what I think a lot of people don't give much thought to is how much Professor Hidgens as a character has evolved since tgwdlm, essentially becoming a parody of himself.

Think of Hidgens as a character. What are his defining traits?

Did you think about how he is a doomsday prepper who has been stockpiling supplies for 20 years? Because that's how he's introduced in Guy.

Did you try think about how he has a weird relationship with his Alexa? Or did we forget about that?

In fact, for the majority of TGWDLM, Hidgens' main character trait is that he says weird shit with a Doc Brown voice.

The whole concept of Workin Boys isn't even introduced until the last half hour of the show. That's where he reveals his real motivation: to live out the musical he wrote as a young man.

Actually, no, that's not right. Because his motivation was world peace, and Workin Boy's was just a convenient means to that end.

I won't disregard the fact that Hidgens clearly has an emotional connection to the show, but in Guy, it serves as a punchline rather than a driving force.

So now we have this lovely, morally-grey, multi-layered character that we can work with.

By the time we get to Time Bastard, the fandom is expecting a show stopping number reference, so of course we get that.

But at this point, Hidge is still that multi-layered character. Sure, showstopping number gets a callback, but we also get a callback to his strange relationship with robots. They make up an equal part of him as a character.

By the time we get to Honey Queen, we have lost several aspects of Hidgens altogether. He is no longer a doomsday-believing recluse. He is now active in the community and his only motivation is to get his show funded. He brings it up at every chance he gets, and his loyalties lie with whoever is more likely to make Workin Boys happen.

So how the hell do we come back from this?

Well, at first it seems like we're not going to. Workin' Boys (the short film) comes out, and it looks like we're leaning even harder into this aspect of his personality than before. But then we get hit with something we're not expecting: Hidge gets the Ted Spankoffski treatment.

I'm referring to Ted's backstory in Time Bastard, where we learn that all of his actions actually stem from a single, traumatic moment, which in his eyes forced him to alter his behaviour, so as to not go through the same trauma again.

Can you see where I'm going with this?

The backstory we get from Hidgens certainly puts things in perspective. No, it's not enough to explain why his behaviour has been so laser-focused on this one show, but it's a start.

Then comes the part that changes everything.

It's left up to interpretation whether these ghosts Hidge is seeing are actually there, or just hallucinations, but that doesn't really matter.

Hidgens had been through a horrible experience, so traumatizing that he is still literally being haunted by it decades later. For one reason or another, he believes that the only way he can relieve himself of these ghosts is by bringing honor to the loved ones he's lost and telling their stories.

This reveal recontextualizes everything we know about Hidgens as a character. Suddenly, this isn't a story about some guy who just really wants to put on his musical, this is a story about guilt. Of course it would be the driving factor in his life. Look at him apologizing to his boys. He feels like he is slandering their memories with everything that goes wrong for the show.

This is supported even more with the ending.

Henry Hidgens dies with a smile on his face, believing he's finally achieved his goal: to tell the real story of what happened that night.

It finally makes sense as to why we've lost those parts of him--we've retconned the character by revealing that all that simplification of his goals and traits wasn't flanderization at all, but a steady downward spiral of grief over his loved ones. It wasn't Hidgens getting a little too into being a playwrite, it was him descending into madness caused by the inability to please the part of himself (or the literal ghosts, if that's how you interpret it) that believes he's not doing enough.

And if not for Workin' Boys, he would have remained that one-dimensional character.

[taeaura]

The Over-Simplification of Thomas Hewitt

TW: Self-harm, Self-mutilation, Rape {only mentioned twice, and very brief}, Hoyt warning, TCM-Canon-Typical Violence

Thomas {Hewitt} is such a complex character that I feel is taken to such extremes - he's either oversimplified or outrageously radical. For example: The two most-common tropes I see for him {which I'm not demeaning, just critiquing} are A.) He's an extremely sadistic, unforgiving maniac who has no form of empathy or depth to him {this trope usually makes him a rapist, sex-fiend, or someone who uses sex as a way to resolve disagreements.} B.) An extremely-traumatized individual who can do no wrong, doesn't understand the weight of his actions, a consistently-scared man who's socially unaware of EVERYTHING, and just generally a character with no depth. {This trope ALSO usually portrays Thomas as a sex-fiend as well as someone who uses sex as a form of apology.} The truth is - Thomas is such a complex man; Not only in his character but truly in his nature {which I guess is another word for character but whtever.} YES; He is sadistic. YES; He's traumatized. Yes; He's socially unaware at times - But he's NEITHER of those extremes - at least not by default. I understand the first trope , considering he does appear that way to victims - especially Kemper and Bailey. That being said, he {in the mentality of Thomas} had "valid" reasons to target those two: Bailey referred to him as a "what" {"What is that?"} and Kemper barged into the house uninvited. Thomas knows Erin was invited, he was watching through the basement peephole. He knew Andy wasn't invited based off the way Monty treated him. Also - let's address an obvious-but-often-overlooked aspect of Thomas' "killing patterns": The men he kills - the masks he makes - the way he treats the "masks-to-be" all seem to hint at his potential jealously and envy. He tortured Eric by skinning his fuckin arms - he knocked Kemper out with a sledge hammer and presumably {implied by him picking up a chain of meat hooks} attaches him to a meat hook. Kemper's WAKING UP on a meat hook just to get killed and skinned. Thomas' forms of catharsis are destructive in nature - which seem to extend beyond his victims. In the unrated version of the film, during the "first supper" scene, as Thomas rests his arms against the head crest of the dining chair {this is the most popular GIF of him}, there's multiple scars around his arms - all which vary in size, depth, and location. Sure, these could be work-related accidents, which I'm sure some are, but some seem to be a form of self-harm as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority are self-inflicted; Considering Thomas has no other outlet of emotional regulation or consistent support system. To get into further detail, let's break down his prominent character traits individually:

Protective + Family Oriented {and Selfless}

It's very obvious that Thomas is protective, both of his things and his people. He's not possessive, at least not in my interpretation. His devotion to his family comes in selfless ways; Including sacrificing his own safety just to keep the family alive and well - Together. He refused to stop chasing Erin; Even after injuring his leg and losing his arm. He killed the slaughterhouse manager because he insulted his family; Insulting him and his family's hard work to survive. He lost not only his job and his purpose that day, but his family's main income. His selflessness often leads to him getting taken advantage of and overworked. For example; The family fully relies on him and Hoyt for their survival; Though mostly Thomas. Hoyt can do enough, sure, but if Thomas was gone, the whole family would go with him one way or another. I find he genuinely doesn't view himself "on their level." As in he's subservient to them. This post is essentially the essence Im hinting at. He focuses on his purpose - If that purpose isn't fulfilled, "I haven't done enough - I'm not trying hard enough - The family's not proud of me - They shouldn't be proud of me - ect."

Reserved / Distant

Thomas is very reserved which is very obviously a defense mechanism developed in early childhood. He's distant not only because of his trauma, but his personality as well. I've always interpreted him as a natural introvert - which would've been amplified if he so happens to be autistic. Of course, not all autistic individuals are introverted, I just figured because of his predisposed characteristics. Thomas prefers to observe rather to interact; Almost acting as a shadow amongst concrete - Or a fly upon the wall: Watching every movement and discerning every sound. I talk more about this in a previous post.

Cautious {and Selective}

Adding on to the previous segment, Thomas is very cautious {and selective} with the people he surrounds himself with. Strangers? Absolutely not - unless it's obligatory. His family? Yes. I think this traces back to his trauma and social anxiety; His speech impediment makes it excruciatingly difficult to socialize, further isolating himself and his family from 'evil outside' civilizations. Hoyt's consistent hatred for 'hippy' city-slingers and the family's already-biased ignorant and overly-traditional values make Thomas' social pool a drying puddle.

Judgmental, Envious, {and Violent}

To add onto Hoyt's hatred for city-slinging, draft-dodging, hippy protesters; This hate definitely rubs off on Thomas. He's judgmental - both for survival and out of envy. His momma's "Christian teachings" about how full of sin the world is surely don't help the judgment issues. It's a calamitous cycle which gets worse with each year they spend in solitude. Their fear of society - fear of judgment - keeps them hidden from the rest of the world: Abandoned by the government as they're forced to fend for themselves. Forced to lay low within the shadows so they can remain together, as opposed to rotting in separate jail cells. In a way, it's their own "solitary confinement." Solitary confinement can cause an increase in violence / violent tendencies - Which is no surprise in the case of the Hewitt family. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness,

"Those with mental illness are overrepresented in solitary confinement, despite the vulnerability and threats to the mental health of those incarcerated. Research shows that the effects of solitary confinement on mental health are often fatal, both during and after incarceration. Half of all suicides in prisons and jails occur in solitary confinement. A recent study shows the long-lasting effects; that any amount of time spent in solitary increases the risk of death in the first year after release. Individuals were overall 24% more likely to die in the first year after release, including from suicide (78% more likely) and homicide (54% more likely). They were also 127% more likely to die of an opioid overdose in the first two weeks after release."

How does this relate to judgment and envy? I'll tell you:

Thomas is so conspicuously envious - We can see it in every scene with Eric. When he beats the shit out of Eric whilst caressing his face in admiration - Only to calculatingly caress his own in desperation. The way he gasps once he sees Kemper's wedding ring {for Erin} - Only to follow it up with wearing his face to visit her?? His envy comes out as judgment; His anxiety comes out as judgment. His judgment comes out as violence. It's a continuous cycle which he's learned over time from multiple sources.

Creative, Appreciative, Resourceful

Do I even have to explain this one? Nah I'm kidding.

Thomas is a creative and skilled individual who knows taxidermy, sewing, patchwork, leather-working/smith, all that jazz. It's not only a form of catharsis, but a form of hiding himself from the world. He takes pieces of what he finds beautiful, stitches them together, and presents himself as that "collection" of beauty. It's his way to turning himself "beautiful." This leads me to believe he finds beauty in the smallest things. A decaying carcass? A new mask. Withered and rusting jewelry? A new accessory. Left-behind tools? His tools now. He takes care of the things he loves, and loves to take care of what's been forgotten. He's appreciative of small things; Especially considering the Hewitt family didn't {and still doesn't} have much but themselves and their old farm. He notices the small things. The usually insignificant, under-appreciated, forgotten things. Maybe it's out of necessity; Maybe it's because he feels he's one of those things - Just not one deserving of the same grace.

Reliant {and Independant}

Notice how the family always calls for Thomas? They call multiple times, sure, but that seems to be more out of annoyance than worry. They know Thomas will get the job done - He always does - and he does it damn well. He works hard; He was quite literally one of the slaughterhouse's hardest workers. He worked 'till he was forced out of there. Thomas is stubborn, sure, but it helps get his work done. And - it keeps him safe.

Besides meal-prep, housing, cleaning, and transport, Thomas is very independent. He can hunt forage his own food; Protect himself and others; Make his own clothes; Hell, he'd learn how to cook and clean if he needed to. He doesn't really need transport - at least not in his mind. He's content - He'll make do with what he has. It's like the quote from 'Pearl' "One day you will understand that getting what you have isn't what's important - Making the most of what you have is."

___

Apologies for this being relatively short compared to my other previous analyses; My brain's been kinda foggy recently but we're recovering!

Tommy my beloved socially awkward {autistic} Texan🫀

[hollowed-theory-hall]

sometimes I feel like we’re in the trenches as HJP fans, like wydm he gets flak from the marauder fandom for being mid compared to Jily, Marauders & Co, if not a convenient receptacle for only his parents’ traits, and he’s also getting bashed in the Next Gen fandom for being a bad dad? (again, fingers point to his hotheadedness or impulsive nature, like, what a lazy and unnuanced take but i digress) nevermind he’s undergone plenty flanderization in the general HP fandom!

Harry shaping up to be a terrible parent is plainly ooc for him imo, but I couldn’t bring myself to actually read Cursed Child, so I’m very interested in your thoughts on this!

I never read Cursed Child either, at least not in full. I read a summary + a few lines of dialogue and I felt that I didn't need to torture myself further with it.

Like, I mentioned in the past, a lot of fandoms have this tendency to completely change and mischaracterize main characters, usually for the worse. I think this tendency comes from a place of simplifications. A simplified character is easier to engage with and to place in different fanon scenarios so characters are stripped of their nuance and complexity to serve fanon. And there is an appeal in these simplified versions. They can be good for comedy, crack, and less serious stuff, but when you want to write really angsty shit, I find the lack of nuance disappointing more often than not.

Especially when it comes to Harry, who is often misunderstood by people who claim to love him. As I mentioned in the past, I don't think Harry is hot-headed the way most of the fandom thinks he is. I will die on the hill of Harry's explosive anger being a trauma response because the boy can't get a break.

In the case of Harry, I think it goes beyond just simplification though.

I used to read a lot of HP fic (stopped a few years ago) and Harry was a different character in each "genre" of fics. Like, depending on who he was paired with or the tropes of the fic, you'd get a completely different character who calls himself "Harry Potter".

It's becouse Harry isn't really written as Harry in a lot of fics, not really. See the story is about him. He's the main character who has the most interesting tale. The series is literally named after him. And everyone sees it. And fans want to write a story that won't work with Harry as a character, but they want the backstory — they want to write about a Boy Who Lived that isn't Harry — so we get OCs with the name "Harry Potter" even if I'd never call any of them Harry because they are not him. His story and name are used to make an OC the center of the story, essentially.

Now, I don't mind when people do this. People can do whatever, I'm just not gonna read or engage with it. What bothers me is when people try to pass a Harry who very much is an OC in Harry's skin (although their appearance is also often not that of book Harry, so it's not even the same skin. A pet peeve of mine is when Harry is drawn with brown hair, it just miffs me personally) as the canon one.

And I can somewhat understand where this mistake started, and like with a lot of things I'm not a fan of in this fandom — I blame the movies.

Movie Harry is passive and bland. I think he's a badly written character. But there is a reason for this huge downgrade in Harry's characterization between book and movie.

Movie!Harry was written to be an audience self-insert. Audience self-insert characters are more common in films than in books. In books, the POV characters have to have a personality to be interesting and to be able to carry the book with their internal monologue. They gotta be someone you want to read about. But in film, you can get away with a main character that has no personality at all. And that's what they did to Harry. They turned him into a character the movie audience could project whatever they wanted onto. And I think this was on purpose. So, of course, the audience projected whatever they wanted onto the bland template that is movie!Harry because that's what the movies were written to allow.

So, I think this is part of what caused a lot of the discrepancies in Harry's character. I mean, I'm sure there are a bunch of other factors, and I'm no fandom expert, but, I feel like this self-insert aspect of movie!Harry had a part in what happened to his character in the fandom.

(The negative effect movie!Ron on the portrayal of his character in fanon is similar. Though, this downgrade happened for different reasons called "the director(s) seemed to have shipped Harmony and hated Ron").

[o-craven-canto]

Selected recurrent patterns or "laws" of evolution, of potential use for speculative biology. List compiled by Neocene's Pavel Volkov, who in turn credits its content to Nikolay Rejmers (original presumably in Russian). These are guidelines, and not necessarily scientifically rigorous.

Dollo's Law, or irreversibility of evolution: organisms do not evolve back into their own ancestors. When mammals returned to the sea, they did not develop gills and dermal scales and change back into fish: they became whales or seals or manatees, who retain mammalian traits and show marks of land-dwelling ancestry.

Roulliet's law, or increase of complexity: both organisms and ecosystems tend to become more complex over time, with subparts that are increasingly differentiated and integrated. This one is dodgier: there are many examples of simplification over time when it is selected for, for example in parasites. At least, over very large time scales, the maximum achievable complexity seems to increase.

Law of unlimited change: there is no point at which a species or system is complete and has finished evolving. Stasis only occurs when there is strong selective pressure in favor of it, and organism can always adapt to chaging conditions if they are not beyond the limits of survival.

Law of pre-adaptation or exaptation: new structures do not appear ex novo. When a new organ or behavior is developed, it is a modification or a re-purposing of something that already existed. Bone tissue probably evolved as reserves of energy before it was suitable to build an internal skeleton from, and feathers most likely evolved for thermal isolation and display before they were refined enough for flight.

Law of increasing variety: diversity at all levels tends to increase over time. While some forms originate from hybridization, most importantly the Eukaryotic cells, generally one ancestor species tends to leave many descendants, if it has any at all.

Law of Severtsov or of Eldredge-Gould or of punctuated equilibrium: while evolution is always slow from the human standpoint, there are moments of relatively rapid change and diversification when some especily fertile innovation appears (e.g. eyes and shells in the Cambrian), or new environments become inhabitable (e.g. continental surface in the Devonian), or disaster clears out space (e.g. at the end of the Permian or Cretaceous), followed by relative stability once all low-hanging fruit has been picked.

Law of environmental conformity: changes in the structure and functions of organisms follow the features or their environment, but the specifics of those changes depend on the structural and developmental constraints of the organisms. Squids and dolphins both have spindle-shaped bodies because physics make it necessary to move quickly through water, but water is broken by the anterior end of the skull in dolphins and by the posterior end of the mantle in squids. Superficial similarity is due to shared environment, deep structural similarity to shared ancestry.

Cope's and Marsh's laws: the most highly specialized members of a group (which often includes the physically largest) tend to go extinct first when conditions change. It is the generalist, least specialized members that usually survive and give rise to the next generations of specialists.

Deperet's law of increasing specialization: once a lineage has started to specialize for a particular niche, lifestyle, or resource, it will keep specializing in the same direction, as any deviation would be outcompeted by the rest. In contrast, their generalist ancestors can survive with a marginal presence in multiple niches.

Osborn's law, or adaptive radiation: as the previous takes place, different lines of descent from a common ancestor become increasingly different in form and specializations.

Shmalhausen's law, or increasing integration: over time, complex systems also tend to become increasingly integrated, with components (e.g. organs of an organism, or species in a symbiotic relationship) being increasingly indispensable to the whole, and increasingly tightly controlled.

[mixelation]

What is inbreeding depression? It sounds like depression from inbreeding a lot but your comment has me curious cuz I've never heard of it before. When I hear most people talk about the side effects of inbreeding it's about like blood problems and birth defects?

yeah okay so the reason inbreeding can lead to genetic problems is because of inbreeding depression (here depression in the sense of "decrease," not a mood disorder), which is a decline in fitness due to increased homozygosity. so what does that all mean?

first, fitness in a biological sense has nothing to do with being the "strongest"-- it's your success at make babies that can grow up to make their own babies. a lot of different traits go into fitness, including ability to survive through reproductive maturity and then actual reproductive success. so, "depressed" fitness means you're not as good at producing those babies as _____ (your parents, others in your generation, etc). usually in humans we don't really quantify "fitness" in that it's morally iffy to reduce people down their ability to make babies, so inbreeding depression in people is usually thought about in terms of quality of life and lifespan. so basically, the appearance of various genetic disorders that impact health.

second, inbreeding means mating between two closely related individuals. i'm not sure if there's a biological standard for what makes something inbreeding or not, but there's various ways to calculated relatedness and the table of values for these usually don't go past first cousin/first cousin. the most extreme version of inbreeding is self-fertilization, which is not possible in humans but a common strategy in many plants and animals. note that a definition of inbreeding in humans is likely formed by cultural taboos and can vary. i am going to talk about human examples for most of the rest of this since the original context was the habsburgs (royal family famous for all sorts of health issues that were likely the result of cross generational inbreeding), but the same principals can apply to any sexually reproducing organism (sometimes with some modifications for genetic differences). i also want to note that i am only discussing the biological risks of inbreeding, and i'm not going to discuss any moral, ethical, or cultural issues

so! you now know what inbreeding is and that it leads to a decrease (or "depression") in fitness, or for humans, an increased risk for genetic disorders. how does that happen, exactly? first we need to review some genetics.

you likely learned in your biology class that humans have two pairs of each chromosome and therefore two copies of every gene. you also probably learned that each gene can have different versions, called alleles. My favorite example is blood groups. One gene has three alleles: A, B, or O. You probably ALSO learned that alleles can be either dominant or recessive. if an allele is dominant, then you have that trait with only one copy. if an allele is recessive, then you need TWO copies to have that trait. (this is a huge simplification of how genes control traits, but it's a useful framework to have; just keep in mind that there's lots of very real situations where it will seem like these rules are "broken.") Having two of the same allele is called homozygosity (homo = "same") and having two different alleles is called heterozygosity (hetero = "different"). Continuing the blood type example, blood type O is recessive. you therefore must be homozygous for the O allele to have blood type O. However, if you're heterozygous and have one O allele and one A allele, your blood type will be A because A is dominant to O.

the next thing i am going to tell you is that inbreeding increases homozygosity. in other words, inbreeding increases the probability (but does not GUARANTEE) that the children of related parents will have two of the same allele for any given gene. i don't really want to go through the math on why this happens, but this figure from the wikipedia page on inbreeding might help. otherwise, just trust me bro

so why is an increase in homozygosity bad? well, it's not always bad! but it can create problems. the biggest problem is that a lot of genetic disorders are caused by having two copies of one recessive allele. this is because recessive alleles are often non-functional versions of the gene. for example, sickle cell anemia is caused by a mutation in a gene that contributes to making hemoglobin, the part of your red blood cells that carry oxygen around your body. when the gene can't work properly, your body can't make hemoglobin properly, leading to severe illness. however, your body only needs one working copy of the gene! so if you are heterozygous for one functional allele and one nonfunctional allele, your body can still produce hemoglobin properly (although you might have problems at high altitudes-- but that's a different lesson.) A lot of genetic disorders work like this: heterozygous individuals are unaffected (or only marginally affected). BUT, because they still have that nonfunctional allele, they can pass it on to their child. This is called being a "carrier" of the trait and often the phenomenon behind certain things "running in the family" but "skipping a generation." The recessive allele is being carried across generations, but it only shows up as a disorder or illness in the homozygous state. That's why increasing homozygosity can cause problems-- it increases your chance of one of these disorders.

now, everyone reading this is likely carrying all sorts of recessive alleles that could cause problems if passed on to a homozygous state. The thing is, because humans are diverse creatures, it's unlikely (but not impossible) that one's future babyparent is going to have the same recessive alleles.... unless you have a child with someone genetically similar to you, such as a family member. that's why inbreeding increases homozygosity.

there's also some other problems inbreeding can cause. continual inbreeding across generations can cause a build-up of new mutations that might be harmful, for example. or sometimes it's better to be heterozygous than homozygous even for the ""good"" allele. for example, being heterozygous for the sickle cell gene can increase resistance to malaria.

of course, you can still have two people who are not closely related both be carriers for the same disorder just by chance. i am not saying homozygosity for any given trait is a mark of inbreeding, just that inbreeding increases the probability. furthermore, a child of two related parents being born with some sort of disorder doesn't automatically make the disorder the result of inbreeding. various disorders and illnesses can be completely environmental, or the result of some genetic interaction unrelated to the parents' relatedness. you can also have populations where some recessive allele is really common, without those populations being highly inbred. for example, historical presence of malaria maintains the allele for sickle cell even within diverse populations, because that heterozygous state is advantageous. finally, having two highly related parents does not automatically doom you to genetic disorders; it simply increases your risk. this whole rant was prompted by people hypothesizing about why one of the habsburgs didn't have a ton of health problems, and just being.... incorrect? inheritance is often entirely luck.