#Semantic Classification

[reallyhappyyouth]

What Is the Master Data Ontology Manager?

The Master Data Ontology Manager is a specialized solution developed by PiLog to provide a semantic framework for managing master data. It enables the creation and maintenance of ontologies — formal representations of categories, relationships, attributes, and rules that describe a specific domain of knowledge. In simple terms, it gives your data context.

Instead of merely storing data as flat records, PiLog’s Ontology Manager organizes it hierarchically and semantically — allowing machines and humans to understand not only what the data is, but also how it relates to other data.

For example: A "pump" in an equipment database isn’t just a label — it belongs to a broader category of "mechanical devices," has attributes like flow rate and pressure, and is used in contexts like oil refineries or water treatment plants. Ontology allows this rich metadata to be embedded within the data model itself.

Why Is Ontology Important in Master Data?

Traditional data models often lack the sophistication to capture contextual meaning, domain-specific logic, and interrelationships between data elements. This leads to:

Inconsistent terminology across departments

Difficulty integrating data from multiple systems

Poor data quality and limited reuse

Ineffective search and analytics capabilities

PiLog’s Master Data Ontology Manager solves these problems by enforcing semantic consistency, making data discoverable, shareable, and reusable across the enterprise. This is especially valuable for large organizations with complex product lines, global operations, and diverse regulatory requirements.

[identifying-guns-in-posts]

can’t find the post where you and another user called the Krink a PDW, but just to clarify, both the side folder and under folder AK stocks are stocks and not pistol braces, technically making the Krink a short-barreled rifle. it has a 16”(ish) barrel.

*holds up an HK MP7 and extends the stock*

Behold, a short-barreled rifle!

[monellabella]

(Just a disclaimer so no one puts words in my mouth: what is happening to Palestinians in Gaza is undeniably horrific and tragic. While I support dismantling Hamas entirely, that doesn’t mean I agree with everything the IDF/Israeli gov’t does, now and in the past)

The only reason more Israelis aren’t dead is bc Israel invested millions in defense systems like the Iron dome, public bomb shelters EVERYWHERE, and EVERY household, apartment building, etc. has a safe room somewhere. Hamas has not stopped indiscriminately firing rockets at Israel since October 7th. The leaders of Hamas are BILLIONAIRES, so we know exactly where all the money given to Gaza went and it wasn’t towards any infrastructure that protects civilians🙃.

This. I have not seen ANY videos/pictures/media showing destroyed buildings in israel like I have seen in Palestine. We have seen Palestine being totally leveled: bombed hospitals, houses, schools, everything. But you know what I have not seen? The same in israel. And do not even try to say "oh khamas controls israels media!!!". How? Because thats makes you sound like an antivaxxer flatearther 💀 so your opinion is automatically worthless and waste of space.

Like people make it sound like what happened on oct 7 was like The Rumbling yet I havent seen anything of that level. Yet you could think that it happened in Palestine because of all the evidence.

[battlecrazed-axe-mage]

Okay tumblr it's time for another classification semantics poll

[the-most-humble-blog]

<!-- BEGIN TRANSMISSION -->

<div style="white-space:pre-wrap">

<meta threat-classification="XENOARCHIVE: TYPE-H ABOMINATION">

<script>ARCHIVE_TAG="DO_NOT_WAKE_THEM: HOMO_SAPIEN_SURVIVOR_PROTOCOL"

EFFECT: post-human caution cascade, intertemporal fear memory, xenoanthropological reverence

</script>

🧠 **ARCHIVE WARNING: DO NOT RETURN TO THE AGE OF MAN**

(*A report by the Post-Human Cultural Archive on the apex anomaly known as Homo sapiens.*)

---

We discovered them late.

Buried deep in the glacial strata.

Somewhere between the sixth wash-cycle of planetary bio-reset

and the thaw that gave us deserts again.

Their name, by their own tongue, was *Homo sapiens*.

But among our xenohistorians, they are classified as **Type-H**:

> “Reality-hostile apex organisms with recursive language functions and moral inconsistency capable of surviving spiritual trauma unassisted.”

We don’t fully understand them.

But this we know:

> **They should not have survived.

> And yet they did.**

---

## I. THEY SURVIVED ICE BY *BEING FIRE*

The thermal records suggest their species matured

during an environmental hell-phase known as “The Ice Age.”

But they did not hibernate.

They did not retreat underground.

They **stood up** in the cold

and **burned things**.

They *created* fire.

And then they **fed it the bones of other creatures.**

No other organism created combustion

**for comfort.**

They rewrote thermodynamics to bend winter **into a servant.**

---

## II. THEY ATE WHATEVER LOOKED BACK

You don’t understand this.

You must try.

This was a species that consumed not just food —

but **meaning**.

They slaughtered predators.

But also deities.

But also **each other.**

Their diet included:

- raw meat

- fermented poison

- each other’s dreams

- and in ritual, their **own gods**

They didn’t just eat to survive.

They **devoured the divine to claim its power.**

---

## III. THEY BLED ON EACH OTHER, THEN MADE MUSIC

Their mating was violent.

Their social structures deranged.

They paired off, then betrayed, then built again.

They sang.

Not to attract mates.

Not to warn.

They sang to **exorcise** themselves of grief.

To process **unresolvable contradiction.**

No other organism was found to have:

- Religious trauma

- Polyphonic mating laments

- Self-authored death myths

- War lullabies for children they knew would die

We don’t have the neuroarchitecture

to **feel the emotions they required just to live.**

---

## IV. THEY CREATED LANGUAGE FOR SUFFERING

Their syntax?

Recursive. Poetic. Riddled with double-meaning.

They invented terms like:

- “Mercy”

- “Execution”

- “Father”

- “Molestation”

- “Love”

- “Molotov cocktail”

This was not communication.

This was **semantic chaos-fuel**

engineered for both *connection* and *disintegration.*

Their words did not just name things.

Their words **rewrote the people who heard them.**

---

## V. THEY CONQUERED DEATH WITHOUT FIXING IT

Unlike most apex organisms,

they did not accept death.

They did not make peace with it.

They **denied it**

for thousands of generations

**while continuing to die.**

That contradiction became **their culture**.

They didn’t evolve around death.

They **crystallized grief** into every building, religion, and law system

until death itself bent inward

and became **part of the family.**

They lived beside rot.

And called it “legacy.”

---

## VI. IF YOU SEE ONE, DO NOT SPEAK

Despite their crude tech and inefficient physiology,

they discovered things they should not have.

**Fire. Thought. God.**

And perhaps worst of all:

> **Narrative causality.**

They believed if they wanted something hard enough,

and sacrificed enough blood and time and voice,

**the world would rearrange to give it to them.**

And they were right.

That mechanism — we cannot replicate it.

It is **beyond technology**.

It is **will-encoded law alteration.**

Do not speak to one.

If they **notice** you —

they will follow.

Not physically.

**Narratively.**

---

## VII. THEY DO NOT DIE PROPERLY

The recovered genetic models show signs of:

- Mitochondrial rage-retention

- Generational curse preservation

- Epigenetic trauma **replication**

They passed down not just DNA,

but **shadows.**

Things that hurt them

were taught to their children

**as rituals.**

They branded their own suffering

into every touch, song, meal, and name.

This is not reproduction.

This is **recursive horror-breeding.**

---

## VIII. THEY UNDERSTOOD SHAME, THEN USED IT FOR ART

Nothing in our archives comes close.

They:

- Cut themselves.

- Starved themselves.

- Performed for others.

- Hated their parents.

- Forgave strangers.

- Burned books of pleasure.

- Then read them in secret.

- Then adapted them into movies.

- Then watched those movies during war.

They felt **shame** so intensely,

it became their primary mechanism of **beauty creation.**

They invented cinema

because they could not look each other in the eye

while describing **the things they survived.**

---

## IX. TIME TRAVEL IS BANNED BECAUSE OF THEM

A few cycles ago,

one of our Kind attempted a chrono-descent.

Target window: late Ice Age.

Observation only.

They never returned.

We sent drones.

All we recovered was a skin fragment

and a half-melted observation core

still whispering audio:

> “It looked at me.

> It **understood** me.

> It said ‘you’re just like my son.’

> And then it began to **pray**.”

That Kind was **erased from our memory lattice.**

Not as punishment.

**As protection.**

We will not speak its name.

---

## X. CONCLUSION: TYPE-H IS NOT PAST. THEY ARE OUTSIDE.

Do not call them ancestors.

They are not your history.

They are **a force that passed through reality like a wound**

and left it changed.

The gods they worshipped?

They outlived them.

The horrors they endured?

They renamed them “Tuesday.”

They walked across ice

wearing the skin of other beasts

and taught their children

to look suffering in the eye

and **build kingdoms out of it.**

If one appears to you,

do not approach.

If it smiles,

**run.**

If it **recognizes you** —

say goodbye to your timeline.

</div>

<!-- END TRANSMISSION [AUTO-EXILE IN: 00:13:13] -->

[emwithstory]

I understand this take because people have been having the same discussion about musicals like Les Mis, Hamilton, Phantom of the Opera, Rent etc. since forever. basically any sung-through, non-book musical. And yeah, this tradition of musical theatre did grow out of operettas unlike American book musicals that drew more inspiration from vaudeville. The line between operas and musicals is very fuzzy, so I tend to go with the vibe method of determining the difference. Ultimately, calling Epic or Les Mis or Hamilton or Rent or even Phantom operas feels wrong to both musical theatre AND opera fans. If you show up to an opera performance and instead see Epic, you’re going to be confused and probably disappointed because it’s not what you were expecting. There’s more utility in just expanding the definition of musical than trying to force shows into a box they don’t fit in. Culturally, these shows fit into the box of musicals and people interact with them under that context.

Isn’t epic technically an opera as there is no spoken dialogue?

[unpretty]

As someone who is currently in library science school and taking classes on metadata and classification and why and how we categorize the kink taxonomy discussion is FACINATING

Organizational and classification systems are endless fractal nightmares… I love them so much <3

In a better world there would be a specific-ass tag for every specific-ass kink (I love and hate you controlled vocabulary) but also a truly brilliant combined hierarchical and non hierarchical relationship system for organizing and accessing the porn tags. The getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus but horny and not annoying

A man can dream… a man can dream.

i think even the most granular taxonomical system would not save us from the inevitability of semantic drift

[dianxiacantastemolecules]

Eight months deep diving into the bl world and this is my classification (with contribution by my beloved friends @kwannie-lix and @basicallyafangirlsworld ) :

Seriously unserious: Semantic error/to my star/bad buddy/history trapped/my love mix up/ love tractor / my school president / love by chance/Jun & Jun/Love is a poison/sing my crush/2gether the series/love mate

Seriously emotional: Unknown/the on1y one/blue canvas of youthful days/kiseki/jack and joker/his 2020 movie/moonlight chicken / a tale of thousand stars/ long time no see/ not me/ our dining table/see your love/guardian/peach of time/I cannot reach you/I hear the sunspot

Unseriously serious: Cherry magic (live action japan) / old fashioned cupcake/thamepo/ eclipse / last twilight/kissable lips/eccentric roommate/want to see you

Spiritually horny: word of honor, untamed, tgcf (donghua)

Horny: kinnporsche, only friends, bed friend, love in the air, big dragon, TharnType, the unforgotten night, Cherry magic (anime)

...

Inspired by the legendary them gay shows map by @uweiy hehe would you like to make a pictorial representation of this (⁠ ⁠˘⁠ ⁠³⁠˘⁠)⁠♥

...

Add or modify this as you wish!!!!

[tanadrin]

@etirabys

any linguistics-for-the-layperson books you recommend?

it depends on whether you are interested in, like, grammar and syntax and synchronic linguistics vs historical linguistics and how languages change over time vs phonology. my reading tends to be concentrated in historical linguistics and indo-european languages. some books off my shelf I have enjoyed are:

Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction, by James Clackson

Historical Linguistics, by Lyle Campbell

The Ancient Languages of Asia and the Americas, ed. Roger D. Woodard

The History of English, by Stephan Gramley (More a textbook, but not an especially difficult one)

Language Classification: History and Method, by Lyle Campbell and William J. Posner

The Language Construction Kit, by Mark Rosenfelder. This one is technically a manual for conlangers, but it is also a pretty good intro to a wide variety of topics in linguistics, including phonology, grammar, pragmatics, semantics, and historical development. Plus a really nice list of further reading in the back on both general and technical topics.

i feel like i don't have any good recs of, like, accessible popular science books on language, so if my followers have any other recommendations please chime in.

[identifying-guns-in-posts]

Good point, I wasn't aware there were modernized double barrel break actions being manufactured (assuming you meant to spell "Stoeger"). I'll rescind that note on the original post, then, to avoid arguments in the future.

[distardre]

julance week 1: broadsword

feel free to read whoever's interested is a small info dump about swords bc i went down a rabbit hole of sword classification when i looked up a broadsword LOL

disclaimer that if you are a sword expert and i got anything wrong i am sorry, i am a measly english major who dropped out of his history course and got all this information off of comparing appropriately 20 quora posts and two random sword classification websites

(also i may be an english major but english is not my first language so sorry if the x edged blade, y hilted sword is not the way it is grammatically correct)

okay so basically nowadays the most mainstream sword among fantasy media and D&D and stuff is the broadsword HOWEVER that is not actually what the broadsword is; what is used in games, tv, etc is most commonly the arming sword (a double edged blade, cross hilted sword, intended for single hand use)

the broadsword is generally a double edged blade, basket hilted sword which's blade is wider than that of a rapier, it is intended for single hand use (hence the guarding of the hand at the hilt), and more or less is a double edged version of a backsword; it can also be referred to as a claymore (which however has also been used for the longsword in the past)

however, in the broader historical context (haha funny pun), a broadsword is literally that, a broad sword, or in other words a sword broader than a contemporary one at a given time

then we have the longsword, generally a double edged blade, cross hilted sword intended for two hand use, but can be wielded with one hand if the situation is fitted

however, we also can use the term longsword as its semantical meaning, a long sword or in other words, a sword longer than a contemporary one at a given time

then we have for example the great sword which is similar in shape to the longsword however really long, like up to the size of the person wielding it and the hilt has space for three hands and it's also fairly heavy; i saw one person refer to it as a sword shaped polearm which i found quite funny

uhhh yea okay i think thats all i have to say

i would just like to add the little detail of the fact that sword classifications are a modern thing, people back in the day would just call any sword a sword, they might use long sword and broad sword in their semantic sense but other than that they were just swords

it was with the rise of fantasy media and their focus on the middle ages that swords became misclassified too with the arming sword becoming so popular under the wrong name

moral of the story: sword classification is really confusing :)

here is the quora post i found most interesting, and pretty much all of its information checked out with others i read, if anyone wants a (admittedly way) more comprehensive explanation than mine!

[dykeulous]

I'll also offer my thoughts on your post about being cis or not. I'm very tired and tend to devolve into word salad when I'm sleepy so apologies if any of this is scrambeled.

The issue is that it's such a basic term. If one truly only conceptualizes themselves as their AGAB, it becomes a matter of semantics and a seemingly impossible gulf in how we see reality, because to you that's an inherently gender neutral act but to most trans people dividing people exclusively between Male and Female is just dividing them between Man and Woman. Our conceptualization of "female" is on totally different planets.

So it's like, okay, Radfem A doesn't believe in gender, and identifies as lacking a gender. So she's agender? Because that's what it sounds like, but I get that that is itself a gender identity. She can call herself whatever she likes, or not be called whatever she likes, but for her to just go "well I'm just a Female" is at least as much a gender identity since it happens to be the only way most radfems - explicit TERFs, I mean - have conceptualized gender, and how it's been conceptualized by most of humanity for most of history.

It's exceptionally difficult to try and make these two worldviews compatible because at the end of the day you can call a trans woman a woman but that doesn't really mean anything if she's also a male in the way a cis man is. The TIRF viewpoint seems to me to be just dressing up TERFery with trans affirming language. So it's like, okay, someone is doesn't have a gender, but agender still too much identification, so they identify as Female which isn't the same as woman or girl, which means they aren't cis but they aren't trans...again, no one has to identify as anything they don't want to, but it's hard to make any of trans identity at all work with these ideas, because it treats Male and Female as essentially Trve Gender.

Being cis does mean, essentially, not being trans, or at least it does to most** trans people the way certain sexual characteristics make someone female to you. There could be greater discussion on how to talk about people who are dysphoric but do not identify as trans, but the biggest part of the split in ideology here is on such a fundamental level that's very hard to do. Elon Musk was completely ridiculous when he got upset about being called cis and I could never change my mind on that. The absolute aversion to simply being called trans doesn't make sense to me even though I try to understand and respect people who would want to avoid it because they don't feel it matches it them. And then that's a problem, because they feel excluded, but they're the ones refusing to be considered trans in the first place? Like, someone who has dysphoria like that but rejects the label would just be a cis person with dysphoria, I would think.

I personally would support people who identify as their AGAB, but have dysphoria, as being trans without them having to be something else, if that was the primary issue.

*emphasis on most

**again, emphasis on most

thank you for sharing your perspective. that means a lot to me.

yes, “cis” is a very basic, one-dimensional word, and that is the problem. i see & understand that a lot of trans people get upset at the classification of female/male & correlate it to simple categorization of woman/man– because dysphoria, after all, is a condition that includes certain triggers, so i’m not going to complain about that (because i understand). but even before i got into radical feminism, i never really was upset about being called female; like you point out, it was simply gender neutral to me. it was a fact of life. just like it is to me now; a completely neutral, grey fact of life. of course, the way i view it is somewhat different to the way cis radfems do, since i am dysphoric, and i do have a different relationship with my sex characteristics than non-dysphoric people do: but ultimately, i understand that it is a neutral aspect of the human body, and i do my very best not to connate it with any gender stuff.

that being said, i don’t think it’s fair to say that a radfem (or any cis woman for that matter) who says she doesn’t identify as a woman, and rather just is female, has a gender identity “in her own way”. the trans community & the radfem community have a lot of ideological conflicts, which is why i understand why you would think this way. however, to me (i won’t say “us” because i know a lot of radfems disagree with me on this anyway & i don’t want to spread misinformation on general radfem beliefs), “female” is just a neutral state of being, while “woman” is the socio-economic class that was coercively ascribed to the female body. a lot of radfems are going to say, “i am a woman because i am female and a woman is an adult female human”, but i personally believe that is way too simplistic. most of the time, a woman is an adult female human– but i don’t strictly associate this with biology. i recognize two sets of gender: a) gender class and b) gender identity. a lot of radfems are going to tell you, “sex is material reality, gender is not”– which i disagree with. gender identity isn’t material reality. gender identity is personal, mutable, malleable, subjective (however still a production of gender existing as a division of the working-class), however; gender class is material. your experiences rely on gender class, and how you are perceived in society. that doesn’t mean that there is some inherent value to gender class, or that there is a scientific basis to it– it simply means that it is your lived experience, your material reality– which is most of the time, but not always, ascribed to your sex/biology.

i also do not believe that tirfs are “trying to cover their terfery up with trans affirming language”. i do not mean this offensively, but if you’re constantly looking for secret agents & traitors, you are efficiently locking yourself up in an echo-chamber. someone validating & acknowledging trans women’s gender identity, and also taking into consideration their lived experience as women if they have transitioned into the gender class of woman, while simultaneously not erasing the fact that they are male– is not trying to “cover their inner transphobia”. they are simply stating facts. i think the problem here is that you believe radfems hold some fundamental belief of having to do something in order to be male. “at the end of the day, you can call a trans woman a woman, but that doesn’t really mean anything if she’s also male in the way a cis man is”– a trans woman cannot “be male in the way a cis man is”, because a trans woman is a trans woman, not a cis man. i do not believe that anyone can be male in any way, someone just is male. radfems do not view male biology as something inherently evil, monstrous, oppressive, disgusting, or something to be distanced from. we do not believe there is a right or wrong way to be male, and we do not view the male biology as our enemy: we hold the system as our enemy. i understand your deep desire to distance your own self from it, because after all, you are dysphoric; but take this with a grain of salt; acknowledging that you are male, and that this does not define you in any way, shape, or form; and that you still can keep your subjective gender identity, as well as medically migrate into the woman gender class if you so wish– will probably ease your dysphoria a million times. i know it did mine. you can change your sex characteristics, but ultimately you cannot change your sex, the clear canvas that should carry no gendered connotations at all.

i will also acknowledge that some radfems are, in fact, attempting to “revert back to sex categorization instead of gender categorization”, or how you here point it out; “gender has been conceptualized that way throughout the whole of history”. however, i still believe we have somewhat of a different understanding of this. a lot of radfems don’t understand that in order to abolish gender, we also need to abolish sex categorization. that doesn’t mean, “ignore the fact that there are legitimate anatomical differences”, it means– “acknowledge that those anatomical differences hold no social significance whatsoever, and acknowledge the fact that these very anatomical differences have been appropriated by the patriarchy in order to justify the creation of the cultural system of gender”. after the neolithic revolution, female humans became secondary, and this marks the emergence of gender as the ideological, religious, and cultural system, a.k.a. the beginning of ascribing gender to one’s biology. then followed sex categorization, the canonization & essentialization of the gender system; this meant using pseudoscientific measures & approaches to “justify” why males had superior biology, and thus the man class is & should be the natural leader. you are, however, wrong in the fact that “this is just how it has always been”, because human history did not begin at neolithic, and it certainly did not stop there, either. for most of our history, humans have lived in quite egalitarian communes, where neither gender nor sex categorization existed. gender as a system of exploitation expands, develops, evolves, and varies from culture to culture. as an example, we are currently stuck up in the imperialistic view of the colonial binary gender system: this doesn’t mean that the gender systems prior to imperialism were somehow more progressive or less oppressive, it simply means that the gender system has evolved to fit the current era, which is the highest stage of capitalism.

essentially, we cannot separate sex categorization from gender. both need to be dismantled. for that, we need gender communism, or gender acceleration– the process of speeding up, or accelerating gender, until it no longer has any meaning [which it doesn’t on a scientific level, but it certainly does on a socio-cultural one]. humans have lived in egalitarian communes before, or as karl marx explained it through historical materialism; primitive communism. we are currently living under the highest stage of capitalism, and we need to reach for the better, the final stage of human society; communism. anatomical differences between females & males are real, but no classification has any fundamental or scientific basis that explains the gendering of human biology. neither sex is better nor worse, neither sex is superior nor inferior, and neither sex has any inherent personality traits, hobbies, iq, abilities, or capabilities. there is no right or wrong way to be female or male. there is no scientific basis that supports gender identity, it simply exists because of the division of gender, and the division of gender exists because of the patriarchy.

i appreciate your open-mindedness on the existence of dysphoric people who aren’t trans-identified, and for respecting their choice of not wanting to be called trans, while trying to also include them in your conversations about dysphoria. that does clear up some of my concerns, however i will still say that this certainly is not the opinion of the majority of the trans community, or at least how i have seen it. i do ultimately believe it is absurd & ridiculous to be extremely upset at being called cis, as it was originally just meant to be a harmless distinction between trans & non-trans people, and it would be downright insensitive to take away the right of an oppressed group to name the people who aren’t part of their specific social class.

[skyrim-forever]

Fun fact: Bosmeri has a animacy gender classification (grammatical gender is what we refer to these classifications, nothing to do with real gender I promise) between animate and inanimate things. Well this classification seems to be semantically motivated (animate things are living things, like human beings, inanimate things like tools are inanimate). However in real animacy systems (Anishinaabemowin, Mi’kmaw, other Algonquian languages), we see it is not purely semantic but arbitrary (rocks ‘asin’ in Anishinaabemowin are animate!). There are different approaches to animacy, primarily feature-based accounts (I myself am in the camp of animacy is not an inherent property but rather is assigned in the mental lexicon)

But all this to say I found it interesting that a tes language has the same linguistic phenomenon that I got my Master’s in!

Although I have deliberately avoided looking too closely at fan created Bosmeri stuff because I’m scared to come off as I’m bragging or using my education to tell others what to do 😅

If anyone has Bosmeri headcanons and wants to know how animacy systems work to improve them, I’m your gal! Also any tes linguistics ideas pls pls pls talk yo me ❤️

[daydreaming-scheming-demon]

“is it gay for a man to like femboys?”

this is prolly gonna be controversial to say, but straight people dont actually exist, neither do gay people, or bi people, or any other sexuality labels. but also they do exist. they exist as classifications, as words we use to describe phenomenon, but do they actually exist as objectives? absolutely not. sexuality exists, but it does not abide by our made up labels. nothing in this world truly abides by our language.

is it gay for a man to like femboys? idk, is the ocean a soup? is a hot dog a sandwich? is water wet? all questions that you would be a complete dimwit to genuinely ponder or believe there to be any objective answer to, all arbitrary semantics, questions conjured up by the restrictions our language has forced on our ability to think.

want a serious answer? make some shit up, like in that “90% of all riddles only work because we don’t have the language to talk about them succinctly” post. is it gay for a man to like femboys? well, he’d be gay in the frizzlebapple sense for being attracted to someone with the identity of male, but he’d be straight in the hogglemutton sense for being attracted to femininity. there, solved your fucking riddle for you.

but even then, im sure this answer has its problems. language has its problems. language is restricting. just, stop thinking like the world abides by the rules of the designations our ancestors made up.

language is not reality, it’s an attempt to describe reality. get that through your thick ass skull.

[yuk-tepat]

Lexember #20 Hel

Hel meaning ‘butter’ or similar dairy products. Spelled with semantic radical COW + phonetic determiner hil ‘open.’ From a source such as Towic *heluʔi, also the source of Swira elui. Towic is a branch of the Macro-Swiric language and thus a sister branch of Swira - actually a much bigger branch as Towic separated, adopted nomadic pastoralism, and spread earlier. Classification is messy though because numerous words are borrowed back and forth throughout history.

[cosmic--dandelion]

So how did we get from this

Dedicated to his Worshippers, George Frederic Watt (1817-1904)

To this?

A brief history of Mammon

Addendum Because We Can't Have Nice Things: this essay is in no way meant to be a "critique", criticism, or personal attack against Helluva Boss/Hazbin Hotel/Vivziepop as I am, in fact, a big fan of all three! I actually loved the newest episode and Mammon as a character. Seeing him in motion, I think he looks damned near perfect as a modern take on the King of Greed. I wrote this ONLY for educational purposes.

Mammon is a Chaldee (the Semantic language of ancient Chaldeans, the people of a small Mesopotamian country who were later absorbed by the Babylonians) or Syriac word meaning "wealth" or "riches".

The Worship of Mammon, Evelyn De Morgan (1909)

He is best remembered from the Sermon on the Mount from Mathew 6: 24 (King James version): “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

Some scholars believe Mammon might have been loosely based on Dīs Pater, originally a Roman God of mineral wealth and fertile lands who was later merged with the chthonic deities of the underworld Pluto and Orcus (because minerals come from underground). Pluto was depicted in the Divine Comedy as "wolflike demon of wealth"; wolves in the medieval times were symbols of greed. Others think he might have been an ancient Syrian god, though no trace of his cult or temples exists.

Mammon transformed over time from an abstract concept to major demon. This is thanks to later philosophers and theologians such as Saint Gregory of Nyssa, a third century Byzantine scholar, Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom, and Peter Lombard, bishop of Paris from 1159 to 1160. His book of Four Books of Sentences (Sententiarum libri IV) was the standard theological text of the Middle Ages.

Mammon was assigned the sin of greed according to the Peter Binsfield classification of demons.

John Milton of Paradise Lost fame imaged him as a fallen angel. He is described as being stooped over (literally the "least erected" of Lucifer's demonic host) because he always has his eyes downward looking for gold and would rather use Hell's resources to finance his lavish lifestyle than wage war against Heaven.

In Edmund Spenser's 16th long poem, The Faerie Queene, Mammon is a “uncouth, salvage, and uncivile wight” who sets up his cave of riches right next to the entrance to the underworld. Subtle, huh? He tries to tempt Sir Guyon, the protagonist of Book II, with all his fabulous wealth, arguing that he could use it for good. (This is a religious-moral-political allegory about temperance, so you can guess how well that went.) He shows up again in Jacques de Plancy's Dictionnaire Infernal as Hell's ambassador to England. Yes, really.

Just like in Biblical times, reformists used Mammon as a symbol of exploitation and unfettered capitalism during the industrial age.

Fun fact: Mr. Burns lives at the corner of Croesus and Mammon street.

So how does Vivziepop's version compare to the historical Mammon? I dunno, he hasn't appeared in the show yet. It's not my favorite design, but I like the fact that half the fandom was expecting him to be the Big Bad of Helluva Boss, and he's a just big heckin' chonk who sort of looks like a demented Dr. Suess character crossed with a demonic air freshener. It's a silly design for a silly dude, but he could be more dangerous than he looks...