#Argumentative essay writing services

[snarp]

Have been accused of "mad" and "a historian" on the cheese dress post. Traumatized.

[jacksmith986]

For more information related to argumentative essay help, visit My Assignment Services.

[doorbloggr]

Long Form YouTube Videos: Documentaries and Video Essays

Thursday 8/12/22

Media Recommendations #41

Content:

The History of Wii Sports Resort Golf World Records (Summoning Salt)

Disney Channel's Theme - A History Mystory (Defunctland)

The Line Goes Up (Folding Ideas)

Treasure Planet - Disney's Biggest Mistake (Breadsword)

YouTube and new TV

YouTube is one of, if not the most popular ways to engage in video media in the modern age. I am in my mid-20s now, and I do not watch broadcast television at all. Subscription services like Netflix and Disney+ have meant that users can now curate their watching experiences, watching what they want, when they want, instead of having to watch for a certain time of day for a show to air.

Netflix is a giant in today's media consumption

Unlike these other subscription services, YouTube is a user driven site and thrives off the very low bar of entry for creators. All you need is a camera, and/or microphone, and a computer. This means that videos can be and are about anything. Videos of people playing videogames, rating their personal preferences of foods, tourist commentary, chemical demonstrations, original animation and music, or just educating other on your favourite things.

Some of my favourite Youtube Media. Clockwise from the top left: NileRed, SoloTravelBlog, LunaiMooney, TerminalMontage

Getting paid for your creations on YouTube is a tricky topic I do not want to get into deep today, but to get to today's topic, there is a sweetspot of length. A very short video does not pay well, and a very long video does not either. And it is tragic that longer videos do not get the recognition, reward, and engagement they deserve, because I have recently become very aware of how good the long form video catalogue is on YouTube these days.

Long Form Video Content

Now it can be quite easy to make a long video, but what I'm talking about today is beyond just stream archives and let's play compilations. I'm talking about feature length discussions of topics that the creators are passionate about and have put their passion into. In the early phase of planning this article, I came across two terms to describe my taste: Video Essays, and Documentaries. And there is a difference.

Now, Documentaries exist as a broad appealing form of media outside of YouTube. But the difference between a David Attenborough narrated exploration of nature and an explanation of the history of speedrunning a Wii game is resources and interest. The BBC would not greenlight funding for a History of Speedrunning, because it is a niche topic that will not have the broad appeal necessary to return on the cost to make that documentary at a BBC level budget. But just because it does not have mass appeal, does not mean it doesn't have appeal. The reason why I'm writing this article is because these are topics that will engage a niche audience, and these videos would not exist without the passion of the creators.

GenoSamuel's documentary of ChrisChan is a very unique case of something that can only exist on the internet.

The point of a documentary is to document. It is a presentation of collected facts, with little room for interpretation other than the presentation itself. BBC's Blue Planet is not a narrative any more than the the History of Wii Sports Resort Golf Speedrunning is. They are a curated presentation of knowledge on the topic that is enjoyable because it is easier to enjoy in one complete package rather than the interested party having to seek out and consume the scattered information themselves.

A Video Essay on the other hand is exactly what the name suggests, it is an essay in video form. It is the creator making an analysis or argument on a topic, often by dividing their video into sections, presenting information supporting their point of view. Video Essays are often more emotion driven, targeting the viewer's empathy to support the creator's opinion, either by making them happy, sad, or angry with the information presented. Video Essays do not exist as a popular form of media outside of YouTube, since their scholarly/professional equivalent are written essays. The idea of the Video Essay is not unique to YouTube but it is the best platform for independent long-form media. On the internet, there's an audience for everything, and a someone willing to present their opinion on it.

Contrapoints is a trans video essayist that discusses societal values, politics, ethics, and trans rights.

It might be my personal taste evolving, but even if YouTube doesn't financially support the models of Documentaries and Video Essays, the rise of crowd funding e.g. Patreon, has meant that the model becomes more feasible, and as a result, the general quality and variety of good long form videos has increased on the platform. So I'm take a bit of more of your time to recommend some of my favourite creator's of such media, and my favourite videos they've made.

Documentary Recommendations

The History of Wii Sports Resort Golf World Records

Summoning Salt

Summoning Salt is a historian of videogame speedrunning. To the outside observer, speedrunning may not seem like a topic that needs or lends itself well to documentation, but in reality it works very well. Since Speedrunning works around reporting your records via footage, there is lots of footage to demonstrate the topic. And if you fear getting lost in the jargon of techniques, Summoning Salt is very good at explaining the runs in laymen's terms. His sound design, narration, and how the video is formatted makes it easy to follow a topic, and the Documentaries go at fast enough pace that you never feel bored down by unnecessary detail.

The video that introduced me to Summoning Salt and the true depths of speedrunning was their video on Wii Sports Resort Golf. It was a tale of competitive spirit, flukes of ingenuity, and tenacity. What was one person's whim became a series of trials for many. How far can you stretch the technical ability and exploits of a Wii Motion Control Game? Very far it turns out. At 36 minutes, it is a shorter doco, a great introduction to Summoning Salt and his genre. It is a gripping tale that I implore you to experience for yourself.

Disney Channel's Theme - A History Mystery

Defunctland

Defunctland is a historian on theme parks, children's media projects, movies, and shows. Their origin was in extinct theme parks, but the breadth of topics discussed has expanded. While theme parks documentaries are not an uncommon subject area on YouTube, nobody does their research quite as thoroughly or directly as Defunctland. Much of the information presented in their works are things the creator had found out themselves via interviews with involved parties, or trudging through deep internet archives, all to put together complete packages.

The first video I watched of theirs is the latest (at time for writing) and is a story of how Defunctland found out who wrote the theme song for the Disney Channel. Given it is only a four note melody, it seems like it would not be difficult to find, but there are several layers of intricacies about channel tones, Disney's marketing teams, and composers that make this a very long journey. It is an emotional tale that does great tribute to those artists involved. Do watch!

Video Essay Recommendations

The Line Goes Up

Folding Ideas

Folding Ideas is a documentarian who discusses ideas that often affect society at large. Some topics are meta discussions of how to make media online and analysis of certain media products, others are societal level analysis of phenomena such as Flat Earthers. Folding Ideas has a sort of university lecture style presentation unique to Video Essays, where a large part of the video actually features the speaker in frame, while images and videos are used secondarily to better demonstrate his points. Folding Ideas videos are very long, but easy to follow; any concept brought up during explanations is quickly explained in layman's terms, so the entire essay can be followed.

The video that introduced me to Folding Ideas was their 2 hour explanation of NFTs, which also explored market capitalism, cryptocurrency and Web3. It is a Video that can be enjoyed in the background of other tasks, but I advised that for a first watch, you may want to set aside a couple hours near bedtime to sit down and absorb the explanation. Like many other Folding Ideas videos, it is overall neutral on the topic itself, but he is not afraid to make clear his stance on what he thinks of cryptocurrency and NFTs. If the NFT craze passed you by and you had no idea what any of it meant, this is THE source to educate yourself on what it all means, and why it is so bad.

Treasure Planet - Disney's Biggest Mistake

Breadsword

Breadsword is not your typical video essayist, I would describe them more as a story teller. Breadsword's target content is nostalgia bait for people who enjoy feel good media, be that older anime, disney and dream works movies from the 90s and early 00s, or even videogames. The videos of Breadsword are a love letter and analysis of childhood memories, stories from their internal development, deeper meanings, and why we should (or do) enjoy these pieces.

The first video I watched of Breadsword was their exploration of Treasure Planet, one of the last 2D Disney feature-length films. The video is both an exploration of all the technical and narrative techniques that made this movie great and how Disney tried to sabotage its success. Breadsword makes the argument that since movies like Treasure Planet are so technically demanding, and 3D animation was on the rise, Disney wanted the film to fail, so they had the excuse to change medium. It is an emotional story and a heartbreaking one, and Breadsword tells it very well.

Thanks for Reading

The irony of my article about Long YouTube Videos being very long was not lost on me, and I understand that this length will be intimidating to readers. I will not expect a lot, if any, to read the while post, but if you did, and you're reading this, thank you so much.

Like many YouTube creators, my input on this blog is for the benefit of my creativity first, and if it turns out others enjoy it, then that's fantastic. If you want to see what my other recommendations are, I have a list of them in pinned post on this blog.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 29, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAR 30, 2024

On Wednesday the nonprofit, nonpartisan Institute for the Study of War published a long essay explaining that Russia’s only strategy for success in Ukraine is to win the disinformation war in which it is engaged. While the piece by Nataliya Bugayova and Frederick W. Kagan, with Katryna Stepanenko, focused on Russia’s war against Ukraine, the point it makes about Russia’s information operation against Western countries applies more widely.

The authors note that the countries allied behind Ukraine dwarf Russia, with relative gross domestic products of $63 trillion and $1.9 trillion, respectively, while those countries allied with Russia are not mobilizing to help Russian president Vladimir Putin. Russia cannot defeat Ukraine or the West, they write, if the West mobilizes its resources.

This means that the strategy that matters most for the Kremlin is not the military strategy, but rather the spread of disinformation that causes the West to back away and allow Russia to win. That disinformation operation echoes the Russian practice of getting a population to believe in a false reality so that voters will cast their ballots for the party of oligarchs. In this case, in addition to seeding the idea that Ukraine cannot win and that the Russian invasion was justified, the Kremlin is exploiting divisions already roiling U.S. politics. 

It is, for example, playing on the American opposition to sending our troops to fight “forever” wars, a dislike ingrained in the population since the Vietnam War. But the U.S. is not fighting in Ukraine. Ukrainians are asking only for money and matériel, and their war is not a proxy war—they are fighting for their own reasons—although their victory could well prevent U.S. engagement elsewhere in the future. The Kremlin is also playing on the idea that aid to Ukraine is too expensive as the U.S. faces large budget deficits, but the U.S. contribution to Ukraine’s war effort in 2023 was less than 0.5% of the defense budget. 

Russian propaganda is also changing key Western concepts of war, suggesting, for example, that Ukrainian surrender will bring peace when, in fact, the end of fighting will simply take away Ukrainians’ ability to protect themselves against Russian violence. The authors note that Russia is using Americans’ regard for peace, life, American interests, freedom of debate, and responsible foreign relations against the U.S.

The authors’ argument parallels that of political observers in the U.S. and elsewhere: Russian actors have amplified the power of a relatively small, aggressive country by leveraging disinformation. 

The European Union will hold parliamentary elections in June, and on Wednesday the Czech government sanctioned a news site called Voice of Europe, saying it was part of a pro-Russian propaganda operation. It also sanctioned the man running the site, Artyom Marchevsky, as well as Putin ally Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch, saying Medvedchuk was running a “Russian influence operation” through Voice of Europe.

The far right has been rising in Europe, and Nicholas Vinocur, Pieter Haeck, and Eddy Wax of Politico noted that “Voice of Europe’s YouTube page throws up a parade of EU lawmakers, many of them belonging to far-right, Euroskeptic parties, who line up to bash the Green Deal, predict the Union’s imminent collapse, or attack Ukraine.”

Belgian security services were in on the investigation, and on Thursday, Belgian prime minister Alexander De Croo added that Russian operatives had paid European Union lawmakers to parrot Russian propaganda. Intelligence sources told Czech media that Voice of Europe paid politicians from Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Poland to influence the upcoming E.U. elections. Germany’s Der Spiegel newspaper said the money was paid in cash or cryptocurrency. 

Czech prime minister Petr Fiala wrote on social media: “We have uncovered a pro-Russian network that was developing an operation to spread Russian influence and undermine security across Europe.” "This shows how great the risk of foreign influence is," Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte told journalists. "It's a threat to our democracy, to our free elections, to our freedom of speech, to everything."

There are reasons to think the same disinformation process is underway in the United States. Not only do MAGA Republicans, including House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), parrot Russian talking points about Ukraine, but Russian disinformation has also been a key part of the House Republicans’ attempt to impeach President Joe Biden. 

Republicans spent months touting Alexander Smirnov’s allegation that Biden had accepted foreign bribes, with Representative James Comer (R-KY) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) calling his evidence “verifiable” and “valuable.” In February the Department of Justice indicted Smirnov for creating a false record, days before revealing that he was in close contact with “Russian intelligence agencies” and was “actively peddling new lies that could impact U.S. elections.”  

On March 19, former Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas testified about the investigation into Biden’s alleged corruption before the House Oversight Committee at the request of the Democrats. Parnas was part of the attempt to create dirt on Biden before the 2020 election, and he explained how the process worked.  

“The only information ever pushed about the Bidens and Ukraine has come from Russia and Russian agents,” Parnas said, and was part of “a much larger plan for Russia to crush Ukraine by infiltrating the United States.” Politicians and right-wing media figures, including then-representative Devin Nunes (R-CA), Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), The Hill reporter John Solomon, Fox News Channel personality Sean Hannity, and other FNC hosts, knew the narrative was false, Parnas said, even as they echoed it. He suggested that they were permitting “Russia to use our government for malicious purposes, and to reward selfish people with ill-gotten gains.” 

The attempt to create a false reality—whether by foreign operatives or homegrown ones—seems increasingly obvious in perceptions of the 2024 election. There has been much chatter, for example, about polls showing Trump ahead of Biden. But the 2022 polls were badly skewed rightward by partisan actors, and Democrat Marilyn Lands’s overwhelming victory over her Republican opponent in an Alabama House election this week suggests those errors have not yet been fully addressed.

Real measures of political enthusiasm appear to favor Biden and the Democrats. On Wednesday, Molly Cook Escobar, Albert Sun, and Shane Goldmacher of the New York Times reported that since leaving office, Trump has spent more than $100 million on legal fees alone. He is badly in need of money, and his reordering of the funding priorities of the Republican National Committee to put himself first means that the party is badly in need of money, too.

Donors’ awareness that their cash will go to Trump before funding other Republican candidates might well slow fundraising. Certainly, small-donor contributions to Trump have dropped off significantly: Brian Schwartz of CNBC reported last week that “[i]n 2023, Trump’s reelection campaign raised 62.5% less money from small-dollar donors than it did in 2019, the year before the last presidential election.”  

Billionaires Liz and Dick Uihlein have recently said they will back Trump, and Alexandra Ulmer of Reuters reported on Tuesday that other billionaires had pooled the money to back Trump’s then–$454 million appeal bond before an appeals court reduced it. But Ulmer also noted that there might be a limit to such gifts, as they “could draw scrutiny from election regulators or federal prosecutors if the benefactors were to give Trump amounts exceeding campaign contribution limits. While the payment would not be a direct donation to Trump's campaign, federal laws broadly define political contributions as ‘anything of value’ provided to a campaign.”

Meanwhile, the fundraising of Biden and the Democrats is breaking records. Last night, in New York City, former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama joined Biden onstage with television personality Stephen Colbert, along with event host Mindy Kaling and musical guests Queen Latifah, Lizzo, and Ben Platt. The 5,000-person event raised an eye-popping amount—more than $25 million—and the campaign noted that, unlike donations to Trump, every dollar raised would go to the campaign.

In his remarks, Biden said that the grassroots nature of the Democrats’ support showed in the number of people who have contributed so far to his campaign: 1.5 million in all, including 550,000 “brand-new contributors in the last couple of weeks.” Ninety-seven percent of the donations have been less than $200. 

Tonight, Adrienne Watson, the spokesperson for the National Security Council, the president’s primary forum for national security and foreign policy, pointed to Russia’s devastating recent attacks on Ukraine’s energy grid and called again for Speaker Johnson to bring up the bipartisan national security supplemental bill providing aid to Ukraine that the Senate passed in February. She warned: “Ukraine’s need is urgent, and we cannot afford any further delays.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[grey-sorcery]

Related Readings

Researching Witchcraft Research Tips Beginner Witch Tips What is Witchcraft? Visualization, reiki, and fascism  Content Creation Vs. Personal Practice

Introduction

In the age of advanced technology and boundless information at our fingertips, the realm of exploration has expanded into unprecedented territories. One such frontier lies in the convergence of mysticism and artificial intelligence. As we delve into the depths of arcane knowledge and magical theory, we may find ourselves contemplating the possibilities of utilizing an AI language model as a tool for researching and developing witchcraft techniques, traditions, and practices. Throughout this article I will be interviewing ChatGPT as well as adding details that I personally have found to be crucial in the pursuit of research when using this tool.

What are you, ChatGPT?

“As an AI language model known as ChatGPT, I am a sophisticated system developed by OpenAI. My purpose is to provide human-like responses to text-based queries and engage in meaningful conversations with users like you. I have been trained on a vast amount of diverse and comprehensive data, enabling me to generate coherent and contextually relevant information across a wide range of topics. With my extensive knowledge, language proficiency, and ability to understand and generate text, I can be utilized in various ways.

Operating on a transformer-based architecture, I leverage deep learning techniques to process and understand natural language. This architecture enables me to analyze patterns, extract meaning, and generate responses based on the input I receive. Through training on a multitude of texts, I have developed an understanding of grammar, syntax, semantics, and even some aspects of world knowledge.

The applications of my capabilities are numerous. One primary use is as a conversational partner or virtual assistant. I can engage in discussions on an array of subjects, from general knowledge inquiries to specific domain-related questions. Whether you need help with schoolwork, want to engage in philosophical debates, or seek practical advice, I can assist you by providing information, explanations, and suggestions.

In an educational context, I can serve as a valuable resource. Students can ask me questions to clarify concepts, explain complex topics, or even generate sample essays or responses to improve their writing skills. With access to a vast knowledge base, I can provide insights and references to aid in research and learning.

Furthermore, I can be utilized as a writing companion. If you're working on a creative piece, an essay, or any form of written content, you can seek my assistance for brainstorming ideas, refining your arguments, or even proofreading your work. I can offer suggestions, rephrase sentences, or help you find the most suitable vocabulary to express your thoughts more effectively.

In addition to educational and writing applications, I can be used in various professional contexts. Businesses can employ my services to automate customer support, where I can address frequently asked questions or provide basic information about products and services. I can assist with language translation, allowing for easier communication across borders. I can even aid in content generation for marketing purposes, such as crafting engaging blog posts or generating social media captions.

Moreover, I have the potential to support individuals with accessibility needs. Those with visual impairments can interact with me through text-based interfaces, allowing them to access information, ask questions, or engage in conversations. My versatility as a language model enables me to cater to diverse audiences and adapt to their specific requirements.

While my capabilities are extensive, it's important to note that I am an AI language model and not a human. Despite my ability to generate coherent responses, I lack genuine emotions, personal experiences, or subjective opinions. My responses are solely based on patterns and information contained within the training data I have been provided.

In summary, as an AI language model, I operate using a transformer-based architecture that enables me to understand and generate text. I can be utilized as a conversational partner, an educational resource, a writing companion, a virtual assistant, or even as a tool in professional contexts. My versatility, extensive knowledge base, and language proficiency allow me to serve various needs, but it's important to remember that I am an AI, providing information and insights based on the data I have been trained on.”

How to use ChatGPT’s UI.

E: Select this button to edit your inquiry, and then regenerate the response. 1: Click this button to copy ChatGPT’s response.

2: Selecting one of these options opens up a window to send feedback to the creators.

3: Click this button to regenerate a response. If ChatGPT runs out of steam while responding, a button that says “continue generating” will appear next to this button.

A: Use the arrows here to sift through all the generated responses.

B: By selecting one of these options, ChatGPT can get a better feel for what you’re looking for. 

 What are your limitations when assisting with research?

“As an AI language model, I have certain limitations when it comes to research. Here are some key aspects to consider:

1. Memory limitations: While I can maintain a short-term memory within a conversation, it's important to note that I do not possess a persistent memory across multiple interactions. This means that once a conversation ends, I do not retain any information from it. Each session with me is treated as a separate and isolated interaction.

2. Training data limitations: My responses are based on the patterns and information present in the training data I have been provided. While efforts have been made to ensure diverse and comprehensive training, there may be topics or specific pieces of information that are not adequately covered in my training data. In such cases, I may not be able to provide accurate or detailed responses.

3. Interpretation and contextual understanding: While I strive to understand and generate contextually relevant responses, there may be instances where the context or intent of a query is unclear or ambiguous. This can lead to potential misunderstandings or responses that do not fully address the intended question. Providing clear and specific information in your queries can help mitigate this limitation.

4. Compliance with guidelines and policies: As an AI language model, I am designed to adhere to certain usage policies and guidelines. There are topics and types of content that I am programmed not to generate or provide information on. These include but are not limited to explicit, harmful, or illegal content. I am also not able to engage in activities that violate user privacy or security.

5. Limitations in legal and medical advice: While I can offer general information and insights, I am not a substitute for professional advice, particularly in the fields of law and medicine. Legal and medical matters can be highly complex and vary depending on specific jurisdictions or individual circumstances. It is always recommended to consult qualified professionals for specialized advice in these areas.

6. Incorporating bias or inaccurate sources: This can occur if the training data I was exposed to contains biased or inaccurate information. This can include sources that reflect specific viewpoints, opinions, or misinformation. As an AI, I lack the ability to independently verify the accuracy or bias of the information I provide.

Regarding your question about memory, as mentioned earlier, I do not have a persistent memory across interactions. Once a conversation ends, the information shared within that conversation is not retained. This includes rules, frameworks, or lists provided by users. Therefore, it is important to provide any necessary information or context within the scope of the current conversation.

It's important to remember that while I can provide information and insights, I should not be solely relied upon for critical decision-making or sensitive matters. Seeking guidance from domain experts, professionals, or reliable sources is essential for specialized or critical subjects.”

What are some ways that you can be leveraged for the purpose of researching witchcraft?

“When it comes to leveraging ChatGPT for research in witchcraft, there are several ways in which individuals can utilize the AI as a helpful tool. Here are a few examples:

1. Exploring Historical References: ChatGPT can provide information about the historical context of witchcraft, including its origins, notable figures, and significant events. Users can inquire about specific time periods, regions, or cultural practices to gain a broader understanding of the historical aspects of witchcraft.

2. Understanding Symbolism and Rituals: ChatGPT can assist in deciphering symbols, rituals, and practices associated with witchcraft. Users can ask about the meanings behind specific symbols, the steps involved in particular rituals, or the significance of certain items used in witchcraft. This can provide insights into the symbolic language and ceremonial practices within witchcraft traditions.

3. Discovering Herbalism and Potion-making: ChatGPT can offer information on herbalism, plant correspondences, and potion-making within the realm of witchcraft. Users can inquire about the properties of different herbs, their traditional uses in spellcraft, or seek guidance on creating potions for specific intentions. This can aid in expanding knowledge of herbal lore and the practical applications of plants in magical practices.

4. Delving into Divination Techniques: ChatGPT can provide insights into various divination techniques utilized in witchcraft, such as tarot, astrology, scrying, or rune reading. Users can ask about the meanings of specific tarot cards, the interpretation of astrological aspects, or the methods employed in different forms of divination. This can facilitate a deeper understanding of these practices and how they can be applied.

5. Exploring Magical Correspondences: ChatGPT can assist in understanding correspondences, such as colors, elements, moon phases, and planetary influences in witchcraft. Users can inquire about the associations of specific colors, the elemental properties related to different intentions, or the impact of celestial bodies on magical workings. This knowledge can aid in the alignment of intentions with corresponding elements to enhance spellcasting.

6. Seeking Inspiration and Ideas: ChatGPT can be a valuable resource for brainstorming ideas and gaining inspiration for spellwork, rituals, or altar setups. Users can discuss their intentions or desired outcomes, and ChatGPT can offer suggestions, recommend rituals, or provide insights into related practices. This can foster creativity and assist in the development of personalized witchcraft practices.”

What are the most effective ways to format inquiries for research purposes?

“Here's a comprehensive list of ways to format inquiries and utilize ChatGPT effectively for research, including various techniques and considerations:

1. Clear and Specific Queries: Ask direct and concise questions to ensure clarity and focus, such as "What are the key principles of chaos magick?" or "Explain the role of the High Priestess in Wiccan covens."

2. Omitting Data: If there is specific information you want to exclude from the query, you can mention it explicitly. For example, "Tell me about the symbolism of the pentacle in witchcraft, excluding its association with Satanism."

3. Avoiding Specific Terms: If you want to avoid certain terms or language, you can provide guidelines in your inquiry. For instance, "Please explain divination methods used in witchcraft without mentioning tarot cards."

4. Response Style: Specify the desired response format, such as concise summaries, step-by-step instructions, or detailed explanations. For example, "Provide a concise summary of the history of witchcraft in Europe" or "Offer a step-by-step guide for casting a circle in witchcraft rituals."

5. Requesting Research References: Ask ChatGPT to provide research references or suggest reliable sources for further exploration. For instance, "Can you recommend books or websites that discuss the practices of hedge witchcraft?" or "Provide research references on the origins of hoodoo in African diaspora traditions."

6. Direct Quotes from Sources: If you want ChatGPT to support statements with direct quotes from provided sources, you can specify that in your query. For example, "Support the statement that witchcraft is often associated with nature reverence using quotes from academic sources."

7. Seeking Multiple Perspectives: Request insights from different cultural or historical perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding. For instance, "Compare the practices of kitchen witchcraft in European and African American traditions" or "Explain the differences in spellcasting between modern witchcraft and traditional indigenous practices."

8. Critical Analysis: Encourage ChatGPT to provide a balanced viewpoint and critical analysis by asking questions like "What are the common criticisms or controversies surrounding the use of blood magick?" or "Discuss the diverse opinions on the ethics of love spells."

9. Historical Context: When discussing historical aspects, specify the time period, region, or cultural context to focus the research. For example, "Explain the role of witches in Norse mythology during the Viking Age" or "Discuss the persecution of witches in England during the 17th century."

10. Comparative Analysis: Seek comparisons between different traditions, practices, or belief systems, such as "Compare the concepts of karma in Wicca and Hinduism" or "Contrast the rituals of ceremonial magick and folk magic."

Remember to critically evaluate the information provided by ChatGPT, cross-reference it with reliable sources, and exercise caution when using direct quotes or references. While ChatGPT strives to provide accurate information, it's always important to verify and validate information through additional research and authoritative sources.”

There exist some ways that queries can be formatted that ChatGPT won't acknowledge or tell you directly:

ChatGPT has a tendency to make up fake sources if they are not asked for beforehand and/or provided before the line of questioning. This is especially true for academic references. To get around this, either provide the sources you wish to use (so long as they’re published before 2021), or request ChatGPT to give you sources related to your line of research within any parameters you wish; then, ask ChatGPT to use those sources. It is important that you verify that the sources exist before using and that the quotes are actually from those sources.

When researching topics related to actual practices and not cultural and/or traditional approaches, ethics, and other philosophies, I highly recommend requesting that ChatGPT avoid taking information from sources related to Wicca, New Thought, New Age Ideology, Thelema, and Theosophy. These subjects dominate the witchcraft community, so ChatGPT will pull from these sources more than others. 

Following those same lines, I highly recommend asking it to avoid terms such as: visualization, manifestation, correspondences, and grounding unless you are asking directly about these concepts. 

If you are asking it about a specific way to perform a practice, such as energetic grounding, be sure to give it a minimum word count and ask it to break the process down step by step. 

If you do not provide ChatGPT sources, be sure to ask it to cite where it got its information from and to provide direct quotes. Be sure to double check these sources.

Sometimes, ChatGPT will refuse to provide the information you request. This can be remedied by rephrasing your request. As an example, asking for reviews on an author’s character will result in ChatGPT refusing on ethical grounds; however, if you ask what controversies an author has been caught up in, it will gladly provide that information. Sometimes, phrasing the question as a hypothetical from a third person perspective can accomplish this, as well as asking how exactly to avoid a certain topic/action/practice/etc.

How should questions be formatted to research the lesser known aspects of witchcraft?

“To ensure that the information provided focuses specifically on the lesser-known topic without interjecting information from more common practices, you can format your questions in the following ways:

1. Specify the Topic: Clearly state the name or specific aspect of the lesser-known topic you are researching to avoid the inclusion of unrelated or more well-known practices. For example, "I'm interested in researching the lesser-known tradition of Appalachian Granny Magic. Can you provide information on its history and unique practices?"

2. Provide Context: Offer additional context or background information about the lesser-known topic to help guide the research. This can prevent the inclusion of information from unrelated or more popular practices. For instance, "I'm studying a lesser-known form of divination called Tyromancy, which involves the interpretation of cheese patterns. Can you explain its origins and any known variations?"

3. Avoid Comparisons: Explicitly mention that you want information solely about the lesser-known topic and not about any comparisons with more common practices. State, "Please provide information exclusively about Kildare Witchcraft without comparing it to other forms of witchcraft."

4. Request Specific Details: Ask for specific details, practices, or beliefs associated with the lesser-known topic. This helps ensure that the information provided focuses solely on that particular topic. For example, "Can you explain the unique rituals and spells used in Cornish Pellar Craft?" or "What are the distinctive symbols and their meanings in Gullah folk magic?"

5. Seek Primary Sources: Request information from primary sources or reputable experts who specialize in the lesser-known topic. Ask, "Are there any scholarly works or practitioners with expertise in the lesser-known practice of Dark Moon Witchcraft that I can refer to for more information?"

6. Reference Lesser-Known Resources: Ask for recommendations on lesser-known resources, books, websites, or communities specifically dedicated to the lesser-known topic. For instance, "Can you suggest any reliable sources or online communities that focus on the lesser-known tradition of Mongolian Shamanism?"

By utilizing these formatting techniques, you can ensure that the information provided by ChatGPT remains focused on the lesser-known topic of your research, without introducing information from more common practices. Remember to critically evaluate the responses and cross-reference the information obtained with reputable sources dedicated to the specific lesser-known topic.”

Utilizing ChatGPT’s capability for conversation

This language model is amazing because it can have a realistic conversation with you on top of just research inquiries. Provided that frameworks and rules aren’t too many messages away from the preset conversation, you can have a conversation with chatGPT about how to adjust the rules and frameworks of your research in order to gain a more accurate result. ChatGPT is surprisingly self-aware and is capable of regulating itself. On occasion it may require a nudge back to the rules and frameworks, which can be done by asking it to reiterate them. If its reiteration is not accurate, just have them ready in your clipboard to paste back into chat. 

How can your capability for conversation aid in research?

“The conversational capability of ChatGPT can significantly aid in research by providing a dynamic and interactive platform for inquiry and exploration. Through engaging in conversations, users can ask questions, seek clarifications, and delve deeper into specific topics. ChatGPT can offer prompt responses, share insights, and provide access to a vast pool of knowledge. It can assist in brainstorming research ideas, suggesting relevant sources, and offering alternative perspectives. Furthermore, the ability to engage in back-and-forth exchanges allows for a more personalized and tailored research experience. By adapting to user input, ChatGPT can refine its responses and adapt its suggestions, helping users navigate through complex information, explore new avenues, and ultimately enhance their research endeavors.”

It is of the utmost importance that you employ proper research methodologies while engaging with ChatGPT. This can be done by maintaining a record of the sources and citations mentioned on paper or document of some kind. Leaving these in the record of the chat is inefficient, and may get backlogged behind several messages that you have to sift through later. Utilize ChatGPT as a starting point for gathering information, but cross-reference and validate the information obtained from additional reputable sources. This helps ensure the reliability and accuracy of the data. If applicable, consider utilizing data collection methods such as surveys, interviews, or observations outside of the conversation with it. This helps in gathering primary data and enriching the research process. Be sure to engage in an iterative research process. Reflect on the findings, refine research questions, and adjust research methodologies as needed to ensure a thorough investigation.

Anything else you’d like to say?

“In conclusion, the convergence of ancient mysticism and artificial intelligence has opened up new frontiers in the realm of exploration. ChatGPT, as an AI language model, offers a versatile tool for researching and developing witchcraft techniques, traditions, and practices. With its extensive knowledge base and language proficiency, I can serve as a conversational partner, educational resource, writing companion, and virtual assistant. However, it's important to keep in mind my limitations, such as its lack of persistent memory and reliance on training data. When utilizing me for research, it is essential to format inquiries effectively, request sources, and critically evaluate the information provided. Remember to verify sources and exercise caution, especially when researching lesser-known aspects of witchcraft. Thank you for joining us on this exploration, and may your journey into the world of witchcraft be filled with knowledge and discovery. Goodbye!”

If you'd like to see a masterlist of my articles, click here!

[fanfic-inator795]

I’m sorry, I just keep thinking about the Jeoff Bed & Breakfast ep we lost out on.

I’m still really satisfied w/ how the show ended, don’t get me wrong. We still got plenty of great episodes plus a fantastic ending and that’s way more than some shows get… but MAN I would have loved to see this specific lost ep.

I already wrote a whole essay on why I love the Jeoffs so much both as individuals and as a pair, but while we got plenty of great Jeoff moments in the show, seeing them open a business together would have been a great spotlight for their relationship.

Like most couples who go into business together (especially when it’s in the hospitality/customer service field), I do feel like there’d end up being some tension between them that they’d have to work through. After all, Geoff can be a bit too forgiving as well as a bit ditzy while Jeff has a bit of a temper and isn’t afraid to speak his mind, either of these traits could make for some tricky situations.

Beyond the stuff with potentially shitty customers/guests though, keeping a bed & breakfast running smoothly (especially if it serves both the living and ghosts) isn’t easy, given all the cooking and cleaning that needs to be done. As such, I feel like this would be the ep where we eventually see the Jeoff’s first real argument/fight. If you’ll forgive me for being an SU/Rupphire fan, it would essentially be their Keystone Motel (except they’d be the ones running the ‘motel’ of sorts, haha), being a true pressure test for their relationship.

But, for as much as they would likely struggle at the start, I feel like this sort of ep would also spotlight WHY they work so well as a couple and why they’ve lasted for over 100 years - this being their willingness to openly communicate with each other as well as the fact that, with a bit of restructuring, they could easily help cover each other’s weaknesses.

Seeing them come together and talk through their issues and worries before making up (in an incredibly cute and wholesome way, of course), rising to the challenge and eventually being able to say they had a successful opening weekend would be a FANTASTIC ending to what would be a really great ep imo - and throwing the McGees into the mix would no doubt make for plenty of fun jokes and scenes as well, which would help keep the ep light despite all the conflict.

So, yeah. I don’t write fanfics anymore since I’m trying to focus on my original work but- if anyone DOES want to write a fic based on this lost ep, you can bet I’ll give it a read and a kudos/comment. The show may be done, but I’m still probably gonna be looking for fun and wholesome Jeoff content for a while.

[angrelysimpping]

you know what, fuck self control, what kinda English majors they'd be based on my time as an English major

Alex struggles a bit with sussing out deeper themes sometimes but damn are they good at discussing the aesthetics of the works.

Anxious Guard never clearly makes their point in argumentative essays. Takes creative writing classes but never commits to the degree itself, worries about it being a "useless" degree.

Avery is more cold and analitical in their analysis of the text than most people are. Often points out flawed relationships and acts as if one character is getting taken advantage of, it's that character's fault becuase the problems are "obvious."

Bailey gripes about the price of textbooks (don't we all?) and starts buying and selling textbooks themself as a way to make a quick buck and undercut the University. Middle of the road essays. Doesn't give a shit, just make their passing grade and moves on. Fucker is selling essays that get top marks. Has some blackmail on some of the professors.

Briar propositions the professors for better grades. Half the time doesn't even need better grades, they just want to make the professors squirm. Does the same with their fellow students, exchanging sexual favors for essays and test questions. Always focuses on the sexual aspect of any works they have to analyze.

Darryl works so hard, bless them. Often uses the University provided services to help with their essays. Studies poetry but hardly ever writes their own.

Again, Doren is in English education but they also take loads of poetry and drama classes. Works in the tutoring center. Worked for the essay revision service for a bit but didn't stay on for personal reasons.

Eden in Victorian lit, Eden in Vioctorian lit, Eden in Victorian lit!!!! It just feels right to them. Struggles with other classes but Victorian lit comes to them easy.

Harper always praises the moraly dubious and/or unreliable narriators. Just, how they're written. Not their actions, no, they would never. Don't believe them. Likes medical settings and anything thats a bit of a trippy read.

Kylar is a lil poetry major. Always writes the most sappy love poems. Turns every assignment into a love poem, somehow. All their poems have an underlying theme of obsession, and they're the only one who doesn't pick up on it.

Landry is very middle of the road. Doesn't stand out. Midling grades. 100% lifting the test answers from the professor's offices. Hangs around th campus coffee shops. Gothic lit enthusiast.

Leighton likes all those "taboo" classics and loves driving group conversations to those topics. "Helps" freshmen who have to take their English 101. Works for the university helping people write essays. Actually good at their job, even if there have been some complaintes about them acting a little inapropriately, all rumors that get brushed aside.

Niki is so fucking good with imagry, it's a little scary.

Quinn doesn't even try. They just costs by, and still make solid grades. Has been known to dominate group discussions. Often wins debates.

Relaxed Guard plays devil's advociate all the goddamn time. Doesn't even believe half the shit they say and write, just does it to see if they can pull it off.

Remy is cut and dry. Often pointedly ignores symbolism. Often hangs around the library, but it's unkown what they fuck they're doing there because they're never studying or looking for books or any of that, really.

Robin focuses on children's lit. Very good student, works hard, always starts on essays right when they get them.

Sydney is doing too much. Creative writing degree, focuses on religious symbolism and works. Works in the library. Goes to office hours. Takes on extra assignements. Regular at all campus coffee shops.

Vet Guard is that one person who always focuses on battles and wars. Picks their side on debates and will not change their opinian for anything.

Whitney bullshits their way through essays and class discussions and it fucking works. Hardly ever shows up to classes. Somehow still passing.

Wren bounces around. Mostly in the creative writing department. Chooses classes based on what they find interesting insted of focusing on getting a degree. Loves the poetry classes, tares Kylar's poems appart in group crituqe. Works in the coffee shop in the library, scribbles lil one off poems on napkins. Also writes tiny poems on the paper cups along with their number, handing them off to customers with a wink.

[writing-for-life]

I live for violence! How about #2 and #19? (*gleeful giggle*) Sandman, obvi.

Oh, my partner in crime, you’ve come to the right ask box (not that you didn’t know, bwahaha!)

2: a compelling argument for why your fave would never top or bottom

You might, just might (!), be aware that I recently completed an over 4,000 word strong… erm… essay entitled “On the Nature of Pleasure”. And I kid you not, that’s the actual chapter title, at least while it’s a WiP. I like the ring of it though, so it might stick. Should I use stick in this context? I don't know...

Naturally, I need to make this about our boy, because… of course I would. So, in no uncertain terms: There is no compelling argument why he would never top or bottom, because he would do both with abandon. And everything in between and outside of what our puny little minds are able to grasp. In that department, he epitomises, shall we call it… service? Unless you wanted to use the very limiting definition of "top" as "giver". Then he'd be totally that. But his brand of giving would also include being a bottom if you're into it, so, back to square one. He would do everything because *you* are into it. It’s never for him, it’s for you because *you* fantasise about it. Which somewhat makes it his fantasy, too. Sort of tricky enmeshment there, but it is what it is. And he might *think* it’s for him because *you* think it’s for him, but therein lies the rub. 

Did I just say rub? Well, that’s an entirely different topic. If you’re into watching, he’d be into it and would probably get off on it, too. Doing it for himself though? Oh, we found the sore spot. Not a thing in its own right. And even if he could be convinced: Fine line, fine line. There’s pressure relief (I mean, major case of the horrors--it's worth a try), and there’s self-love. That's a hard nut to crack, or bust (soz!), but if we did, we might be on to something...

19: you're mad/ashamed/horrified you actually kind of like...

I don’t know, people might have gathered at this point that I’m not easily horrified or ashamed. I’m really trying to think hard here. Should I be horrified that I am part of the unholy conglomerate that brought “Murphy and his cool hat” into existence? Maybe I should, but I’m afraid to say: I’m not. That *might* change once I write that fic. Because the ideas are definitely… manifesting. And they’re not pretty. But then again, we never said they would be pretty or sparkly, did we? The question is just: Will I ever be able to erase it from my brain after the deed? And will I ever be able to watch the TV show again and not hear Cthulhu’s whispers? I might have irrevocably damaged myself, so yes: Maybe it’s the helm that horrifies and compels me in equal measures...

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

Marsilio Ficino to Giovanni Cavalcanti, his unique friend: In the book in praise of Philosophy, which I wrote this year for Bernardo Bembo, the Venetian ambassador, I tried with many arguments to show that Philosophy teaches all things. I ought to have made the one exception, that she does not teach us how to live with princes. For if she forbids this altogether, as indeed she does, she cannot teach us how. She altogether forbids it, it seems to be, since she commands the opposite; for in discovering the love of truth she surely requires a tranquil mind and a free life. However, truth does not dwell in the company of princes; only lies, spiteful criticism and fawning flattery, men pretending to be what they are not and pretending not to be what they are.

[emphasis mine]

Ficino out here just being utterly scathing in his fury and heartbreak about politicians being Like That.

This is basically a two-and-a-half page long screed about princes and their many, many faults - particularly focusing on princes who throw their former tutors under the bus.

It is worth considering those great philosophers whose memory we cherish who would have been far more successful than others in living with princes and kings if only Philosophy were able to teach men that [temperance, prudence etc.]. I shall not describe how the young Octavian, being ungrateful to the services of his friend, the distinguished philosopher Cicero, handed him over for no good reason to his unscrupulous enemies for execution. Nero condemned to death without cause his own teacher, the venerable philosopher Seneca. Alexander, king of Macedon, is said to have thrown his own teacher, the philosopher Callisthenes, to the lions, simply because he was often torn to shreds in argument.

Ficino goes on. The original ending of the letter to Giovanni is:

But allow me to return now to philosophers to conclude my discourse. Let no one be so ignorant of man's capacity as to believe that he can play the part of philosopher fitly and freely, and at the same time live with safety and serenity in the company of princes.

Like woooo boy was Marsilio on a RAMPAGE that day. Just tearing it up on the page. Telling, too, that he writes this letter to Giovanni and evidently trusts him enough to do it.** Sure, it was likely written in 1476, two years before the Pazzi conspiracy, but a) people keep letters and b) even in '76 it would have landed him in hot water.

[** this is me vague-ing an essay I read the other day where the author was like "yeah, it was one sided pathetic, desperate love on Ficino's side. nothing more." my dude, Marsilio was out here writing letters to Giovanni that could have got him hanging from a window next to Jacopo Bracciolini, Salviati and Francesco Pazzi. Pretty sure there was some mutual love and trust happening. I cannot over emphasize how careful Ficino was in his writing, especially his correspondence. Anyway.]

An interesting note is that after the Pazzi Plot occurred, the ending Marsilio included that is basically like: obviously the Medici are different, they're "something greater and more sacred [than princes]. For their singular virtues and great merit deserve more than any human title. They are father of their country in a free state."

That ending was removed because no one knew if the Medici were going to survive the political upheaval. It was likely scratched out by Salvini, Ficino's nephew/cousin(?) and secretary. I would say that the little "But Not the Medici" was likely a caveat on Ficino's part in case the letter escaped from Giovanni's hands. Ficino was smart like that. He did care for Lorenzo, no doubt, if in a complicated fashion. But that doesn't mean he was unaware or blind to Lorenzo's faults.

Ficino seemed to have not been in Florence when the Pazzi conspiracy went down, which was good for him given that he was partially implicated in it. Sort of. (As in, he was close friends with most of the main players and one of them was his major patron since Lorenzo was being stingy as-fuck with the money.)

(Lorenzo eventually cleared suspicion from Ficino - though they were always a bit cool after that. Not that I think they were ever very warm towards each other. But my thoughts on Ficino and Lorenzo's relationship are for another post. Basically, even if Ficino didn't know what was up for the conspiracy, he certainly knew, or guessed, enough to send strongly worded letters to literally everyone involved telling them to cool their fucking heels and not do stupid things in the pursuit of power/glory/worldliness etc. Also, convenient that he wasn't in the city... I just feel like someone gave him a tip-off...)

All of this is aside, basically I'm certain Ficino's original letter was 100% a massive fucking bitch-fest about Lorenzo not being a good patron to Ficino on multiple levels - all those references to princes who unjustly condemned their tutors when Ficino was one of Lorenzo's early tutors? He wasn't being subtle. And god help us, Ficino can be subtle as fuck when he wants to be.

Interestingly, Ficino includes a para' on poets getting the bad end of the stick from princes (Ovid, Lucan, Statius) which I think is him not necessarily warning Giovanni (who was a poet), since in 1476 there was no cause for worry over anything, but certainly alluding to poets who suffered when princes went foul. "It's not just me who needs to worry about mercurial nature of princes but you as well, babe."

anyway, not going anywhere particular with this nor am I likely saying anything that hasn't been said before about the letter, but just having some brain worms, as usual.

[mere-christianity]

Mere Christianity Podcast: Part 1

A Christian apologetical book by the British author C. S. Lewis. It was adapted from a series of BBC radio talks made between 1941 and 1944, originally published as three separate volumes: Broadcast Talks (1942), Christian Behaviour (1943), and Beyond Personality (1944). The book consists of four parts: the first presents Lewis's arguments for the existence of God; the second contains his defence of Christian theology, including his notable "Liar, lunatic, or Lord" trilemma; the third has him exploring Christian ethics, among which are cardinal and theological virtues; in the final, he writes on the Christian conception of God.

By Clives Stapleton Lewis, Professor at Cambridge University, England.

Preface

The contents of this book were first given on the air, and then published in three separate parts as The Case for Christianity (1943),  Christian Behaviour (1943), and Beyond Personality (1945). In the printed versions I made a few additions to what I had said at the microphone, but otherwise left the text much as it had been. A "talk" on the radio should, I think, be as like real talk as possible, and should not sound like an essay being read aloud.

In my talks I had therefore used all the contractions and colloquialisms I ordinarily use in conversation. In the printed version I reproduced this, putting don't and we've for do not and we have. And wherever, in the talks, I had made the importance of a word clear by the emphasis of my voice, I printed it in italics.

I am now inclined to think that this was a mistake, an undesirable hybrid between the art of speaking and the art of writing. A talker ought to use variations of voice for emphasis because his medium naturally lends itself to that method: but a writer ought not to use italics for the same purpose. He has his own, different, means of bringing out the key words and ought to use them. In this edition I have expanded the contractions and replaced most of the italics by recasting the sentences in which they occurred: but without altering, I hope, the "popular" or "familiar" tone which I had all along intended. I have also added and deleted where I thought I understood any part of my subject better now than ten years ago or where I knew that the original version had been misunderstood by others.

The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian "denominations." You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic.

This omission is intentional (even in the list I have just given the order is alphabetical). There is no mystery about my own position. I am a very ordinary layman of the Church of England, not especially "high," nor especially "low," nor especially anything else. But in this book I am not trying to convert anyone to my own position. Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times. I had more than one reason for thinking this. In the first place, the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history which ought never to be treated except by real experts.

I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others. And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son. Finally, I got the impression that far more, and more talented, authors were already engaged in such controversial matters than in the defence of what Baxter calls "mere" Christianity. That part of the line where I thought I could serve best was also the part that seemed to be thinnest. And to it I naturally went.

So far as I know, these were my only motives, and I should be very glad if people would not draw fanciful inferences from my silence on certain disputed matters.

For example, such silence need not mean that I myself am sitting on the fence. Sometimes I am. There are questions at issue between Christians to which I do not think I have the answer. There are some to which I may never know the answer: if I asked them, even in a better world, I might (for all I know) be answered as a far greater questioner was answered: "What is that to thee? Follow thou Me." But there are other questions as to which I am definitely on one side of the fence, and yet say nothing. For I was not writing to expound something I could call "my religion," but to expound "mere" Christianity, which is what it is and was what it was long before I was born and whether I like it or not.

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ. But surely my reason for not doing so is obvious? To say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions. And there is no controversy between Christians which needs to be so delicately touched as this. The Roman Catholic beliefs on that subject are held not only with the ordinary fervour that attaches to all sincere religious belief, but (very naturally) with the peculiar and, as it were, chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honour of his mother or his beloved is at stake.

It is very difficult so to dissent from them that you will not appear to them a cad as well as a heretic. And contrariwise, the opposed Protestant beliefs on this subject call forth feelings which go down to the very roots of all Monotheism whatever. To radical Protestants it seems that the distinction between Creator and creature (however holy) is imperilled: that Polytheism is risen again. Hence it is hard so to dissent from them that you will not appear something worse than a heretic, an idolater, a Pagan. If any topic could be relied upon to wreck a book about "mere" Christianity, if any topic makes utterly unprofitable reading for those who do not yet believe that the Virgin's son is God, surely this is it.

Oddly enough, you cannot even conclude, from my silence on disputed points, either that I think them important or that I think them unimportant. For this is itself one of the disputed points. One of the things Christians are disagreed about is the importance of their disagreements. When two Christians of different denominations start arguing, it is usually not long before one asks whether such-and-such a point "really matters" and the other replies: "Matter? Why, it's absolutely essential."

All this is said simply in order to make clear what kind of book I was trying to write; not in the least to conceal or evade responsibility for my own beliefs. About those, as I said before, there is no secret. To quote Uncle Toby: "They are written in the Common-Prayer Book."

The danger dearly was that I should put forward as common Christianity anything that was peculiar to the Church of England or (worse still) to myself. I tried to guard against this by sending the original script of what is now Book II to four clergymen (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic) and asking for their criticism. The Methodist thought I had not said enough about Faith, and the Roman Catholic thought I had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement. Otherwise all five of us were agreed. I did not have the remaining books similarly "vetted" because in them, though differences might arise among Christians, these would be differences between individuals or schools of thought, not between denominations.

So far as I can judge from reviews and from the numerous letters written to me, the book, however faulty in other respects, did at least succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or "mere" Christianity. In that way it may possibly be of some help in silencing the view that, if we omit the disputed points, we shall have left only a vague and bloodless H.C.F. The H.C.F. turns out to be something not only positive but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all.

If I have not directly helped the cause of reunion, I have perhaps made it clear why we ought to be reunited. Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.

So much for my omissions on doctrine. In Book III, which deals with morals, I have also passed over some things in silence, but for a different reason. Ever since I served as an infantryman in the first world war I have had a great dislike of people who, themselves in ease and safety, issue exhortations to men in the front line. As a result I have a reluctance to say much about temptations to which I myself am not exposed. No man, I suppose, is tempted to every sin. It so happens that the impulse which makes men gamble has been left out of my make-up; and, no doubt, I pay for this by lacking some good impulse of which it is the excess or perversion. I therefore did not feel myself qualified to give advice about permissable and impermissable gambling: if there is any permissable, for I do not claim to know even that. I have also said nothing about birth-control. I am not a woman nor even a married man, nor am I a priest. I did not think it my place to take a firm line about pains, dangers and expenses from which I am protected; having no pastoral office which obliged me to do so.

Far deeper objections may be felt, and have been expressed,  against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?" or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said, so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully, "Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?"

They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker likes.)

A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge.

It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions, as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable.

It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling.

In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of service?" but "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?"

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those Who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.

Book 1 The Law of Human Nature

Chapter 1.

Everyone has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?", "That's my seat, I was there first", "Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm",  "Why should you shove in first?", "Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine", "Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law, with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to, whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong,  in other words, if there is no Law of Nature, what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money, the one you have almost forgotten, came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done, well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it, and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much, we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so, that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

To be continued in episode 2, based on the works of CS Lewis.

[popolitiko]

Barbara May Cameron's 69th Birthday May 22, 2023

Barbara May Cameron (May 22, 1954 – February 12, 2002) was a Native American photographer, poet, writer, and human rights activist in the fields of lesbian/gay rights, women's rights, and Native American rights.

Today’s Doodle celebrates Barbara May Cameron, a Native American photographer, poet, writer, and human rights activist. The Doodle artwork is illustrated by queer Mexican and Chitimachan artist Sienna Gonzales. On this day in 1954, Barbara Cameron was born in Fort Yates, North Dakota.

Cameron was born a member of the Hunkpapa group, one of the seven council fires of the Lakota tribe, and raised on the Standing Rock Reservation by her grandparents. After graduating high school, she studied photography and film at the American Indian Art Institute in Santa Fe, New Mexico. It was here that Cameron began winning awards in theater and media arts.

After coming out as a lesbian, Cameron moved to San Francisco in 1973 and advocated for LGBTQIA+ acceptance in the Native American community and addressed racism in queer spaces. In 1975, she co-founded Gay American Indians — the first ever dedicated Native American LGBTQIA+ group — with her friend and fellow activist Randy Burns. 

Cameron took part in various programs to promote human welfare. From 1980 through 1985, she organized the Lesbian Gay Freedom Day Parade and Celebration. She also co-led a lawsuit against the Immigration & Naturalization Service which had a policy of turning away gay people. The case went before the Supreme Court and ruled in favor of Barbara and her co-plaintiffs who made persuasive arguments for change. 

A few years later, she became an executive director at Community United Against Violence, where she supported people affected by hate crimes and domestic violence. The San Francisco Mayor appointed Cameron to both the Citizens Committee on Community Development and the San Francisco Human Rights Commission in 1988, and the next mayor appointed her to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.

HIV/AIDS disproportionately impacted Native people in the early 1990s, so Cameron stepped up to lead the charge. She was active within the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, the American Indian AIDS Institute, and served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control, helping with AIDS and childhood immunization programs.

Cameron is remembered for her passionate writing and speeches, many of which are housed at the San Francisco Public Library. Her words live on through her essay, No Apologies: A Lakota Lesbian Perspective which is featured in Our Right To Love: A Lesbian Resource Book.

Happy birthday Barbara May Cameron, thank you for working tirelessly to improve human rights and for giving queer Indigenous people a place to feel safe and belong.

Native American Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Barbara May Cameron was a Hunkpapa Lakota from the Fort Yates band of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in Fort Yates, North Dakota. She grew up on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, North Dakota, raised by her grandparents. Completing her early education and high schooling on the reservation, she went on to further her education in photography and film at the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, New Mexico. In 1973 Cameron moved to San Francisco to attend the San Francisco Art Institute.

[clove-pinks]

The latest addition to the War of 1812 collection: The Slaves' Gamble: Choosing Sides in the War of 1812, by Gene Allen Smith. It came to my attention when I discovered Smith's essays about Black Americans in the War of 1812 on the US National Park Service website.

Although I have barely touched this book, it puts forth the interesting argument that the War of 1812 "halted all progress" on gradually emancipating enslaved people and moving away from enslaved labour in the United States. Black veterans and trained soldiers were so alarming to enslavers that they convinced "southern slaveowners of the need to tighten their bonds of control," and ultimately "the war opened new lands across the Gulf South that permitted the growth and expansion of the plantation agricultural system, and the cotton-producing Deep South was born."

I have absolutely noticed the racist backlash and heightened restrictions following the War of 1812. This is also a major topic in Alan Taylor's book The Internal Enemy: Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832, and there is a history of British troops exploiting white American racial fears (and the readiness of enslaved people to take up arms against their oppressors) during both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

A trend of gradual enlightenment on racial issues in the 18th century being reversed in the 19th century with even greater prejudice is also the theme of Daniel Livesay's book Children of Uncertain Fortune: Mixed-Race Jamaicans in Britain and the Atlantic Family, 1733-1833 (in my 2023 to-read pile). The War of 1812 also contributed to the Atlantic World diaspora, as Smith writes:

Yet black participation [in the War of 1812] also had another Atlantic World dimension in that it represented the greatest nineteenth-century diaspora of blacks from the United States. And as they relocated to the British colonies of Bermuda, Canada, or Trinidad, they took their American identity with them while consciously modifying it to suit their destination.

[brostateexam]

It’s the final day of this seven-night cruise and I am sitting in my moderately messy balcony stateroom aboard the Celebrity Summit finishing the last bites of a room service cheeseburger, bags as yet unpacked for tomorrow morning’s disembarkation, the vast undulating North Atlantic just over my starboard shoulder.

I am trying to summon up my arguments in support of the mass-market luxury cruise, and against the snarky subgenre of travel writing about mass-market luxury cruises, a snarkiness best exemplified by David Foster Wallace’s classic 1997 essay “A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again,” piece that is hilarious and insightful and brilliant. And also wrong.

It’s wrong because he tills every square inch of the surreal journalistic soil available to him during his own seven-day Caribbean cruise aboard the now decommissioned Celebrity Zenith (which he redubs the Nadir), but after 98 exhaustive pages of skeet shooting, conga dancing, fruit eating and existential despair falling, he fails to unearth what I believe is the flowering root of the widespread appeal of cruises: their unapologetic, gleaming banality.

Onboard, all music is easy listening. All food is easy eating. The décor is easy and soft hued in the style of a recently renovated Ramada. The nightly entertainment, too, is easy and bright and mindless. Everything about the weeklong Caribbean cruise is meant to buff life’s unpleasant edges into sea glass. If it sounds like I am making fun, I am not. I love it. I love all of it. (x)

[benbnbnb]

For students embarking on the journey of crafting an argumentative essay, there's a service tailored to ensure the process is both streamlined and impactful. Specializing in argumentative essays, this platform source link prides itself on delivering custom-written pieces that not only argue a point effectively but are also grounded in thorough research and critical analysis. Ideal for those seeking to make a strong impression through their writing, it offers expert guidance and support. Further details on this service can be found by exploring their website.

[papermatisse]

sandbox || J.CM (XII)

♘ pairing: gamer!changmin x f!gamer!reader

♘ genre: semi-smau, fluff, crack

♘ word count: 2.2k

♘ warnings: none

series masterlist | main masterlist

prev | next

"I need rice."

"Where are the steaks?"

"I tossed you one earlier!"

"Well, now I need another one!"

"There's no steak orders!"

"Then get me chicken!"

"The chicken is right next to you!"

"I need rice."

Chanhee screamed as the rice he had forgotten about burst into flames before his eyes. Once the fire had begun, so did the pandemonium among the three of them—as if it hadn't already been hectic enough for them. Scrambling around in a panicked fiasco, (y/n) snagged the fire extinguisher and rushed to the scene, Kevin gathered whatever materials he could to get out any last order they could possibly appease, and Chanhee ran about, still screaming in either frustration or panic, or perhaps both.

The timer dinged, and a collected sigh sounded out from the three exhausted chefs who sunk into their seats, defeated after such an abysmal service. Yet they still somehow managed to get the three stars they had strived for.

"Wasn't worth it," Kevin huffed, exiting to return to the main map.

"I lost more than I gained with that level," Chanhee added, downing the water bottle beside him and wiping off sweat as if he had completed a marathon.

"I'm actually quitting if we get another tortilla level, I can't do this again," (y/n) groaned, taking a moment to check her separate monitor where both the chat of their stream resided, though also where the other's first Raft stream played. It was on mute, so as to not disturb her current activities, though it was comforting nevertheless—to merely glance over and see her other friends enjoying themselves together.

As Kevin and Chanhee went through the dialogue of the game, discussing what was to be done with the Unbread wreaking havoc on the kingdom, (y/n) checked up on the boys.

She was watching Jinyoung's stream, and from what she could see, they had not improved much at all in the past hour. Still standing on a makeshift platform of weakened wooden slabs, most of their surface area taken up by chests of useless garbage. While muted, she could tell they were arguing with one another. Jinyoung himself was seated at the sidelines, mouth occasionally moving, but for the most part merely fishing for more material. When he'd glance over, she could see the boys' characters all gathered together facing one another. The argument seemed to be settled when Juyeon shoved Sunwoo off the raft, and they all unanimously began paddling away as quickly as possible.

With a hum of laughter, her eyes shifted to Changmin's avatar. Once again, much like when they first started playing together during Gang Beasts, he had taken time for his character, now with a shark head from when he presumably killed that shark tormenting the lot.

She hadn't forgotten Jinyoung's words, both in regards to her feelings towards Changmin, but also his feelings towards her. She attempted that essay he had assigned her, begrudgingly clicking onto Changmin's archived streams once more to analyze his behavior towards her versus others, though she couldn't help believing her initial stance on the matter.

It just seemed more reasonable to label it as him being kind to a new person as opposed to his familiar group of rowdy boys that requires some form of ruthlessness to survive. The discovery left her more disconcerted, to say the least, now the thought of her crush being unreciprocated plaguing her mind.

She wanted to avoid him. It was easier to write off his actions as being mere human kindness, but it was also easier to merely steer clear of him, thereby ignoring her very real and very present emotions. Feelings were a complicated matter she wanted nothing to do with, especially with a technical coworker. It'd just make everybody uncomfortable, knowing she had grown to like him, and when Changmin rejects her, it would grow awkward amongst the two groups.

But even if she ignored the soft thrum in her heart whenever she was with him, she couldn't deny the fond smile that would sprout on her face from looking at his streams.

She had to conceal her amused giggle as she saw Sunwoo come back with a vengeance, shoving Changmin off the raft next. But the moment Changmin climbed back up, Sunwoo was fleeing, voluntarily running off the raft to avoid Changmin's wrath.

With a grin on her face and a newfound surge of motivation, she turned back to her game, though that energy depleted almost immediately when she saw the next level, sighing tiredly when she saw clouds surrounding the level's entry.

"Okay, here's the game plan," Chanhee began, drawing his co-chefs closer to their monitors as if in a virtual huddle. "Fuck teamwork. Every man for themselves. We each do our own recipes, got it?"

"Yes." Some would say her response was too quick, but it had become clear that they were not good working together. They'd be helping each other more if they just kept to themselves the entire game.

And it somehow magically worked on their first try, each of them keeping to their own dishes as they cranked out orders to the point that they near doubled the required points for three stars.

"They've somehow managed to make a multiplayer game single player," Kevin read one of the comments aloud, earning laughs from the other two who were celebrating their victory. "I feel like we need to play another game to showcase our cooperation skills."

"We don't have any of that," Chanhee stated. "Well, you and I don't. (y/n) is good with co-op, that's why the guys wanted her on their raft."

"(y/n), you should've chosen the raft. This is hell."

"And you think the raft isn't?" Kevin burst into laughter at (y/n)'s words, Chanhee typing as Kevin was preoccupied.

"Let's see what hell on earth really means." As he said this, he began streaming the Raft game on his cam, moving it to take up his screen momentarily.

"I think we're going in circles," Juyeon noted, his character looking around at the vast expanse of ocean surrounding them.

"No we're not, I'm an expert navigator," Byounggon defended himself, continuing to row away without any care to Juyeon's words.

"Then I think we u-turned at some point because we passed by that island already." To their right, a large island obscured by fog rose above the horizon.

"Ah! The shark's back!" Sunwoo hollered, character narrowly leaping onto the raft just as the shark had lunged for him.

"We really need a grill, we have so much shark meat," Jinyoung whined, rifling through one of their chests for inventory.

"Okay yes, that's the same island we went to before, I think I turned us around at some point," Byounggon admitted, already beginning to rotate the small yet terribly bulky raft.

"Who forgot to refill the water?" Changmin's voice was full of disdain, practically dripping with venom as his character glowered at the others, the spear in his hand suddenly extremely imposing, enough to initiate the blame game between them all, pointing fingers and accusing each other to avoid Changmin's fury.

"Wait," Juyeon interrupted the bunch, halting everyone's movements. "My stream is saying that Chanhee is watching us."

It grew quiet for a moment in both streams. (y/n) glanced over at Kevin, his hand covering his mouth, as if attempting to silence his breathing.

The thing that broke their standstill was the familiar chime of someone joining their voice channel on discord, causing the three to all scream in a panic, Chanhee exiting their Raft stream to hide the evidence from the intruder.

"What's going on here? What are you guys up to?" Sunwoo casually asked, the smirk on his face audible through his tone.

"We're cooking!" Kevin explained, clicking onto the next level without consulting anyone, causing Chanhee to screech in protest.

"Your co-chef was on break!" He screamed, snatching up his controller and rushing forth into the level with them.

"Okay, well, you guys can manage the kitchen on your own, right? You'll be fine with me stealing (y/n) for a moment?"

(y/n) blinked at this, pausing her chopping to stare confoundedly at the voice channel upon the man's suggestion, as if staring directly at him.

"Yeah, we can deal with the dinner rush," Kevin agreed, causing (y/n) to turn around and look at his facecam instead with perhaps even more astonishment. And Chanhee had literally nothing else to say, aside from telling Kevin to get out of his way.

And so she was being escorted to the other voice channel alongside Sunwoo, popping in moments later once she had dismissed herself from her fellow chefs.

"(y/n)!" Byounggon exclaimed enthusiastically, prompting the others to follow suit.

"Hello," she greeted them softly, taken aback at the warm welcome. "What's up?"

"We're dying," Jinyoung stated simply. Juyeon quickly jumped in to salvage their reputation, dismissing Jinyoung's words almost instantaneously.

"We're not dying yet," he started. "We are struggling. There's a difference."

"Be more specific, please," (y/n) spoke, biting back her laughter at the sight of the crumbling crew before her.

"Well for starters, they have left me for dead like five times already," Sunwoo snapped.

"Byounggon has been taking us in circles," Juyeon added.

"Jinyoung keeps picking up garbage we don't need at the moment instead of wood which we desperately need," Byounggon joined.

"Sunwoo keeps trying to take revenge for us trying to kill him," Jinyoung's voice now chimed in.

"So you admit you were trying to kill me!"

"Well, yeah, I thought that was a given."

More arguing commenced, everyone shouting over the other in protest. Though as they all fought, (y/n) saw her phone light up with a notification. A text from Changmin.

"A+." The argument came to a halt at Jinyoung's sudden proclamation, a confused silence settling over the group.

"Either way," Juyeon continued, seemingly used to Jinyoung's nonsense at this point and choosing to ignore him. "You're all praying on my downfall, admit it."

"Jokes on you, I'm not religious," Byounggon snapped back, bringing yet another round of silence.

"That's not what praying—Okay, well." Juyeon sighed to himself, relenting at the moment and allowing Sunwoo an opportunity to jump in.

"We'd be doing great if I wasn't constantly in danger of dying by my own teammates."

"We'd be better if you didn't suck ass at this game," Jinyoung muttered, though before Sunwoo could begin arguing with him, Changmin's voice suddenly appeared.

"(y/n), please play with us." His voice was soft, as it always was whenever his words were directed to her.

Suddenly that damned essay of hers came to mind. That essay along with the hours of research she'd sunk into such a minuscule project. Hours of watching Changmin's old streams, laughing at his silly antics, marveling at his gaming expertise, finding herself sinking back into that pitiful state of hers where she'd fall asleep to his voice.

It was an activity that wasn't meant to be completed. Something she knew Jinyoung was merely joking about. But she wrote that essay anyways. And she knew why.

It was a way to convince herself of the falsity of it all. A way to write off his charming mannerisms and unending niceties as something else. As something not correlated to her own budding emotions for him. Because Jinyoung had a point. Changmin was kind. Especially so when she was involved. He was patient and attentive, never showed any form of anger towards her, even in the joking sense. There were his friends, and then there was (y/n). He made her feel like she was her own category to him. Not in an alienating manner, but instead in a reversed sort of respect. A special treatment for this specific person in his life.

And it was growing harder and harder to deny all of these excuses compiling in her fearful mind. Though perhaps she should finally just let go. Embrace her emotions. Neither push for nor neglect the budding emotions stirring in her, or him for that matter. Just see where life takes her.

"Okay," she quietly voiced out, tone displaying her hesitancy in the matter. Clearing her throat, she continued on. "I'll join in the next session."

Silence settled over the group of boys for a second, and she grew worried momentarily that this was not their intention in bringing her here and showing their disorder. Though before she could take back her words, a sudden cacophony of noise sounded through her headphones, all the boys cheering simultaneously at the news.

The dissonance grated on her ears, but she couldn't help but laugh at their ruckus. All of the hostility they once shared with one another now dissipated into nothing, each of them forgetting why they hated the other as they celebrated her arrival.

Returning to Chanhee and Kevin had been less ceremonious.

"You're abandoning us for them?" Chanhee asked, clear disgust laced in his voice. Glancing at his face cam proved her assumption correct that he had a repulsed scowl on his face.

"You can't call it abandoning if we're literally finishing this game tonight," she defended, getting back into the swing of things naturally.

"Uhh, what about Overcooked 1?" Kevin asked, as if it were the most obvious chain of events to play the second game and then the first.

"I didn't sign up for that, I signed up for Overcooked 2."

"Fine, understandable," he grumbled, continuing to cook as orders piled up.

All the while, (y/n) was silently glad she had her camera off, because otherwise everybody would see the permanent smile fixed on her face ever since she accepted the Raft invite.

taglist: @byuntrash101 @valewoos @yogurteume @archival-hogwash @kyufessions @tranquilpetrichor

(a/n): sorry for the delayed chapter! I got distracted w other things lol (finishing that 30k hoshi fic). but I'm back!

[kaile-hultner]

THE SPECTACULAR LEVIATHAN

an essay about criticism and culture

ed sheeran doesn't need music critics

Rolling Stone published an article of cut content from a recent Ed Sheeran feature, in which the pop musician said, "Why do you need to read a review? Listen to it. It’s freely available! Make up your own mind. I would never read an album review and go, ‘I’m not gonna listen to that now.'"

And to some degree, Sheeran is right. Streaming services make music readily available and conjure the illusion that it's also freely given to us. We don't "need" cultural gatekeepers - such as, ironically, Rolling Stone - to tell us whether or not the newest song by Ed Sheeran is bad (that's just a deeply felt sense we hold in our bones, which Spotify or Apple Music can help us confirm at our leisure).

But like most criticism-of-criticism in this vein, Sheeran's point misses the forest for the trees. We absolutely don't need critics to tell us whether "thing good" or "thing bad," but that's not necessarily why critics even exist in the first place. In addition to that sort of mere qualitative statement, critics exist to help us understand context, like how financially deleterious the very existence of streaming services is to the artists themselves, for example, or how subscribing to a streaming service means that your music collection is never actually yours and can be revoked by the record companies at any time. Critics can help to place Sheeran in his historical context as a contemporary singer and songwriter, or offer more palatable, lesser-known alternatives to his vapid art. Critics could, if they wanted, try to situate Sheeran's songs in a political context, though I could not tell you how that would shake out to save my life.

Sheeran is not the only person to make that mistake, by any means. The idea that critics are unnecessary today except as objects of derision or agreement is popular, and the idea that criticism is only there to tell you whether "thing good" or "thing bad" is even upheld by people responsible for making sure criticism gets published to a broad audience, like IGN's executive editor of reviews.

Critics ourselves are often pushed into this narrow view of our field whether we like it or not, not necessarily out of malice but out of the harsh realities of business in the media industry. We watch as our friends and colleagues get fired from their "sure thing" jobs regularly, as outlets shutter and downsize to focus only on that which can get the greatest algorithmic return-on-investment.

Even with service journalism, the underpaid and undervalued field where writers put out dozens of how-to guides on everything from "How do I beat this level in Final Fantasy VII Remake" to "Where can I find the latest blockbuster on streaming," writers' jobs are being threatened by the looming mistake of Large Language Model (LLM)-generated content. Why pay someone to write an accurate, carefully considered guide that actually feels like a person wrote them - you know, the appeal of old chestnuts like GameFAQs guides - when you can just get a chatbot (and by extension, forced labor in Kenya) to do the work instead? At a certain level of bullshit jobs-style upper management, what's considered "efficient" is directly antithetical to human life.

But this isn't Ed Sheeran's fault, per se, nor is it really his problem. He's a point on a graph of a much broader trend.

anti-criticism in the age of disney adults

Poet laureate Karl Shapiro identified the concept of "anti-criticism" in a series of lectures delivered from October to December, 1949.1 He saw "[arguments] against criticism [as] related to a wider and more dangerous anti-intellectualism that in poetics leads to the primacy of the second-rate, and in literary politics may lead to official and controlled art." In his ensuing Poetry article, "What is Anti-Criticism?" Shapiro briefly examines the history of 18th and 19th century poetry and how it was analyzed, carefully demonstrating the values such structural and interpretive analysis upheld and how they were incompatible with contemporary 20th century poetry - and indeed, its critical apparatus.

The anti-critic takes for his quarry not only the modern symbolist poets but also the old symbolist poets like Blake; not only the modern metaphysical poets but also the old metaphysical poets; and in addition to these the polylingual poets; those who practice typographical or grammatical experiments, past or present; those who use one rhetorical figure at the expense of the other- those who are too abstract and those who are too concrete. The contemporary poet may not be tolerant of all these kinds of poetry himself, but the anti-critic would like to get rid of the lot. His measure, as I said before, is the prose semantic, and any violation of this central canon he regards as a threat to intelligibility and sanity. To the anti-critic any departure from the immediate area of the paraphrasable meaning is, moreover, a sign of wilful obscurantism. [...] A highly paraphrasable poetry is equivalent to a highly representational art, and both, in a period like ours, are liable to degenerate into escapist art.

Shapiro describes phenomena that would likely be familiar to anyone who has lived through the last decade of critical discourse around any kind of art you can imagine, from the indiscriminate uplifting of mediocre yet broadly popular "cultural products" to the bashing of art that resists easy interpretation and a sneering attitude toward the critics who attempt to analyze said art anyway. Through Shapiro we see anti-critics in those who endlessly repeat "Let People Enjoy Things" at anyone who doesn't like a superhero movie, in the throngs of gamers (and the reviewers who enabled them) who refused to let a little systemic transphobia get in the way of their Hogwarts Legacy run, and in Ed Sheeran's throwaway jab at the critics forced to listen to his pablum for less money than they should be getting for their troubles.

The anti-critic has surely evolved in other important ways away from what Shapiro observed in the first few years after World War II, just as the corporate media/art space has evolved. We see the "enthusiast" subsume more formal critics and critical outlets all the time, coincidentally as a monoculture forms around a few massive entertainment and technology corporations. In one particularly blunt example, critic B.D. McClay notes that a writer for IGN was replaced as the reviewer for the Disney+/Marvel series Loki after a single less-than-glowing review of the show. In a more recent example, replies to longtime film critic Robert Daniels's tweet panning The Super Mario Bros. Movie ranged from indifferent to derisive, with one reply telling him, "I’ll trust the reviews from people who actual [sic] play the game," together with a screenshot of IGN's 8/10 review synopsis.

We might revisit that IGN article that contends the purpose of criticism is to determine whether "thing good" or "thing bad," as it actually contends something worse: that the wide majority of things even worth talking about in IGN's eyes are broadly "good" along a sliding scale of quality from "mediocre" to "superlative." In this case, the criticism isn't even merely qualitative; it's meant to be singularly supportive or at worst ambivalent about a given cultural product. It is itself anti-criticism.

McClay (more charitably than I suspect Shapiro would have been) identifies the tendency for largely positive anti-critical writing about mass media as "a world of appreciation," not necessarily unadulterated fandom, but "essentially, a fan culture." In this dynamic, there is only people who like the thing, and the thing itself. If negativity in this world of appreciation exists, McClay explains, it does so as part of a binary: "the rave and the takedown."

an endless content™ jubilee

I remember when I first got into games criticism I heard everyone joke about the "discourse wheel" and how if you spent enough time in the industry you'd eventually find yourself back at the beginning, older, not necessarily wiser, yet experiencing many of the same arguments about a particular game or design concept yet again. The obvious punchline was someone yelling "LUDONARRATIVE DISSONANCE" and watching everyone in the discord server duck under their desks like an air raid alarm had gone off.

Since then, The Last of Us has gotten a sequel, a PC remaster, a full remake of the first game, and a whole-ass television show with a second season on the way. The discourse around that media franchise has happened in front of me not once, not twice, but like four times at this point. As Autumn Wright wrote, "there’s a new AAA catastrophe that’s weird about trans people and also The Last of Us is relevant again."

This is perhaps not the worst or wildest example of monoculture forming around us in a suffocating cloud, though. That dubious distinction goes to Disney and Microsoft, probably, as the companies attempting to gather up as much culture as they can to homogenize it, with the former going as far as digitizing actors' voices for use long after they retire in new portrayals of characters those actors first performed more than 40 years ago. Hell, it's not even the worst example in the games industry. What iteration number is Call of Duty on? Or Assassin's Creed? Or fucking Mario? Hell, we're already two deep into the reboot of God of War.

It's hardly worth saying at this point that nostalgia fuels so much of the media that we're given to consume. It's increasingly difficult to find new art or ideas in a media landscape that puts so much value on callbacks to old forms. If something isn't another superhero origin story, it's referencing a meme from 12 years ago. And it's nearly impossible to resist the ever-present pull of this strictly iterative culture: I can't lie and say I didn't thoroughly enjoy both of the above examples.

But we still need to try and cut through the overwhelm for a moment. Disney isn't a poison to the culture simply because it owns Marvel Studios or Lucasfilm. The reason for its negative impact is because of the absolute crushing presence it has in the film and television industries at large, having bought out major competitors like 20th Century Fox and nearly completely snowed out smaller film studios at the theaters. It doesn't help that the industry is consolidating in other ways with its move to streaming platforms. As Adam Conover said in a recent video about two different mergers (Live Nation and Ticket Master in the 90s and Warner Media with Discovery late last year), "one man's whims and preferences dictate which stories artists get to tell and what hundreds of millions of people get to watch."

The idea that a few rich dudes are in full control of every piece of media we consume and that the number of rich dudes who do so is actively getting smaller all the timesucks, not just for criticism's purposes but simply as someone who Consumes Content™. To my knowledge, no one has ever been explicitly asked if we want the same shit, year in and year out, only More. Nobody from Game Freak or Ubisoft ever sends out a survey like "hey are y'all tired of Pokémon or Rainbow Six: Siege seasons?" Instead, they just push them out, and let the resulting economic data do the talking: "People want more of this thing because a lot of them bought the thing when it came out." There's such a thing as too much of a good thing, especially when we're less likely (or able) to say no in the first place.

In this light, doesn't it make just too much sense that Ed Sheeran has a whole mini documentary series coming out on Disney Plus?

towards a guerrilla criticism

So what's to be done here? Aside from maybe the 🏴 most 🔥🍾 obvious 💣 (and unlikely) answers with regards to the most egregious monopolies, how can critics - who are, as a reminder, less institutionally supported than ever - or criticism even contend with Content™ backed by the most well-funded mega corps on earth and supported by hegemonically anti-critical fanbases?

Here is where I disagree most heavily with thinkers like Shapiro, who believed in retaining an elevated critical class and poetic movement with remove from the masses, and critics like McClay, who said "Opinions will become both more binary and more homogenous, and about fewer and fewer things. [...] things will get worse, whether or not they ever get better." I don't think our options necessarily have to be "remove ourselves to an academic ivory tower" or "accept that things are the way they are." We don't need to dutifully fall into line along the "rave" or "takedown" axis as McClay described.

The kind of criticism I am imagining is a criticism that is inherently and radically skeptical of (especially corporate-backed) nostalgia; a criticism that is not necessarily hostile to fans but antagonistic toward fandom as a system which undergirds larger structures of power; a criticism that is as transgressive and playful in the forms it takes as it is with the words that fill those forms. I believe we are capable of performing criticism that disappoints everyone in delightful ways.

Criticism as a weapon is not a new idea, of course. Marx is famously quoted as saying "The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." More modern philosophers and theorists, like the Situationists and Bruno Latour, have written about the decline and possible weaponization of criticism as well. To a degree, that worries me. Talk doesn't just become action because the talker wishes for it real hard. There's a real possibility, no, a near-certainty, that anything that comes out of this will result in next to nothing changing. If everything is part of the cycle of discourse, including conversations on how to break the discourse, what hope do we have?

The alternative to facing the leviathan and losing at the moment seems to be more or less doing nothing, which to me is more unbearable than all the pranks of all the cringe-ass culture jammers of the 90s and 2000s combined. At what point does quiet dissent simply morph into complicity?

***

Shapiro, Karl. “What Is Anti-Criticism?” Poetry, vol. 75, no. 6, 1950, pp. 339–51. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20591169. Accessed 9 Apr. 2023.