#but i think it's important context here as one of the many reasons i'm entirely fucking fed up with this line of thinking

[v-arbellanaris]

u know what actually im gonna make one last srs post abt this whole thing and then im doneeeee i swear lmfao, so all of the anons in my inbox can finally shut up and fuck off and i'll put it under a cut so i dont ~ruin your da4 hype~ the way youve fucking ruined mine i guess.

watsonian justification for this: "decisions you made 10+ years ago in another part of the country simply will not affect the current story". hey isnt the entire story behind veilguard that a guy has been working for the last 10 years to rip down the veil. like. is the whole thing not a story that started 10 years ago. do you not have access to the eluvian network now because solas stole it 10 years ago from briala. is the blight not around because of the evanuris in some way. isnt the entire magisterium something that's been in place for thousands and thousands of years. like even within the context of da, the entire story revolves around things that happened thousands of years ago that have shaped the world that our characters exist in today. we, ourselves, as real people, don't live in a world where things happening on one side of the planet do not affect anything else. and that's not even touching on the fact that we have companions from the first game showing up. at the very least decisions that affect them directly should have been factored in????

doylist justification(s) for this: #1 "we only wanted to include worldstate decisions we could develop reactivity to" so the only decisions were.... whether or not solas is romanced? for me, it's the way that when you're playing dai, the entire justification for NOT being able to romance him as anyone other than lavellan is that you can have a deep and important and complex relationship with him even if you dont romance him, the fandom is always going on & on about how important friendship!solas is and how it shouldnt be underrated but the moment his ENTIRE CHARACTER (and ours?!) gets boiled down to whether or not you had a romantic relationship with him, we're going to celebrate it??? really??? REALLY??? what in the fucking amatonormativity is this, and how is this a step BACKWARDS from dai for solas???

#2 "the world was too complicated so they wanted to simplify it for new players" that's literally the problem we're discussing. the problem we're discussing is the complexity of the world, and the solution bioware came up with for it is to simply scrap it all, and surprise surprise! not everyone is happy about it??? you are just describing the problem that the solution fails to address???

i think the most annoying part of this whole thing is the fan response to it. literallyyyy am seeing things like "no one ever complained about the worldstates not mattering in the next games before da4" which is NOT TRUE. ever since i JOINED this fandom, i've heard so many things about people complaining about leliana defaulting back to a hardened state in dai, about alistair's characterisation in dai, about cullen's repeat appearances, about your boons/decisions in dao not carrying forward in the next games. people HAVE been complaining about it, for ages, especially in dai. it is explicitly a problem in dragon age, and has been for a long, long time, and the problem has only grown the more complex the worldstate becomes. that's why they tried to address the problem here by simply scrapping it all. i've also seen things like "well if youre only interested in callback references, this dragon age game not for YOU" which not only minimises and dismisses the issues and feelings at hand here, but also reeks of self-righteous, smug superiority of I Am The Sole Correct Enjoyer. who is this game for, if not for people who love dragon age?

i'm not here for rook's story - i'm here to save the world that i've built with my own two hands over three games. i am doing that through rook as a character, yes, but i have no cause or reason to care about rook at all going into this game except for the basic fact of this is my character that i am playing - rook is a character that i expect playing the game will make me invested in and care about them. but you know what i already cared about before going into veilguard? you know what i've saved three times over already, potentially even at the cost of my own life? thedas. MY thedas. OF COURSE I WANT TO KNOW THAT IT MATTERS. in world, solas himself wants to know what changes his actions wrought. THOUSANDS OF YEARS AFTER THE FACT. why is everyone acting like fans are insane for this????

i, for one, have not complained about the game "ruining" origins or da2 or even dai. i was excited about the changes, because changes were evidently necessary. i have been fully prepared for the differences, even if i've been apprehensive or cautious about it. do you think i'm disappointed now because i hate dragon age??? where do you fucking get off saying this game is not meant for me? because i dont agree with how bioware has chosen to resolve this issue, suddenly these games are Not For Me anymore?

and you know what, i already know they're not for me. the way this series, and this fandom, treats people of colour, and characters of colour, i am made aware every single day that dragon age is not for me. these games are for the liberal white girlies and white queers living in the west. i know damn well these games have never been for me, and any insistence that it should consider me will be met with vitriol and viciousness. and guess what? i am still here.

i was sooo ready to let this go until the fandom just kept acting like ppl are idiots for being unhappy about things AT ALL in da4. its so fucking annoying to me. i'm NOT going to complain about every single little thing in da4 possible, but i'm also not going to act like bioware is going to do and is doing everything right. what is WITH this fandom and extremes of thought and behaviour. is it because you're all american??? like. i'm actually so sorry that you live in a black-and-white world with no complexities or nuances because it must be so boring and sad.

in my opinion, i would not have minded slimming down the narrative choices to a select few that they could really hone in and focus on. i feel like the dragon age keep decisions can be a bit arbitrary, and i would've loved to see like 5-6 key decisions per game, ORRRR even for your worldstate to boil down to something like whether or not you generally supported positive change or upheld the status quo per game, and then specific character decisions regarding the inquisitor to be brought in, since they're the pc that actually shows up. i do think there's likely a lot of chaff that can be cut off or simplified as a sort of "lost to the times" kind of narrative telling. but boiling down these games to three fucking choices that are ultimately just 'did u romance and like solas or nah' is fucking INSANE. why is the answer to the issue of the quantum - which has been an issue for a long time!!!!!! - to just... scrap it entirely???

edit: adding this here since i said i wouldnt make any more posts abt this topic but i rly find it laughableeeee when fans eagerly parrot bioware insisting that just because those choices dont matter in THIS game doesnt mean they'll never matter in a FUTURE game (i guess we can expect the next one in 2034?). if they already scrapped those choices for this game, and you're all still buying it (some of you??? PREORDERED it???? i thought we agreed not to do that???), why would they bother. do you think the next dragon age game wont have the same line of logic for 'we need to make it accessible for new players!!!!!' that they had for this one and for dai? how willfully stupid are you that you think I'M the stupid one here?

im happy for you guys tho! i hope the new dragon age game where theyve removed all of those complexities instead of making ANY effort to address ANY of the existing dissatisfaction around feeling like any of your game decisions mattered supports your existing brainrot so you can continue believing in a black-and-white reality. really glad theyve simplified it for you guys just like you wanted into 3 choices all about sola/vellan.

i'm going back to my own sandbox, as epler has instructed me to, so i can ~imagine~ my own thedas lmfao

[irawhiti]

to be clear with regards to my post attempting to coin ngāti rangiātea, i say a few times in vague terms that people will expect you to go to drastic lengths to find your iwi that are not reasonable nor moral. i'm not remotely exaggerating, especially about the moral part.

the final straw that prompted drafting the post and term for me was when, after mapping out my entire family line to pinpoint the person who came from aotearoa to australia over multiple years only to find VERY solid evidence that they were born on the ship to australia and their mother deliberately obfuscated their identities + there is literally no tribal record due to them fleeing aotearoa during the musket wars, i was told to send a physical letter to a person who married into my family who i found out by chance currently lives in aotearoa. this was only possible because i found she is semi-popular in certain circles and has a p.o box at her work address.

despite this being a pretty extreme invasion of privacy, i sent a hopeful letter asking for any information she may have had. obviously i never got a response. this was met with people telling me that i need to send more letters to this complete stranger. when i said "yeah i don't want to do this, there is a 99.9% chance she doesn't even know we're māori due to my specific situation, she clearly isn't interested in speaking to me, i've just found out she was a truly awful person towards my immediate family, and this is a gross invasion of privacy" i was criticised for giving up.

and forgive me for saying that i just don't think that this should be the state of things. to put the concept of Maybe Potentially finding one more crumb of info to put towards Maybe Potentially discovering a piece of your family history above basic human decency and respect.

and it's like... alright. theoretically: what if this did lead to the discovery of my iwi? what exactly does this do for me? like, functionally? i'm not from aotearoa. my family have been diaspora māori for almost 200 years now. my fires have been put out, i have no access to a marae, my entire family (alive and dead) has had a fundamentally different life experience than the other māori from the iwi we came from. hell, entire iwi have come and gone in 200 years, absorbed into other iwi through marriage or wiped out through conquest.

apart from being a brief nod to my whakapapa in a pepeha (followed by the harsh reality that i still wouldn't know my hapū to recite immediately after my iwi), what would this mean for me? for my whānau? why am i expected to run around in circles, ripping myself and everyone around me who may have a single fucking crumb of information apart? who does this validate? because it sure as hell doesn't validate me. i've decided that i'm much more interested in representing and learning about my whānau than the people i was separated from nearly two centuries ago at this point and hey, if that makes strangers feel a bit pissy for some reason, that's really not my problem.

so, i'm ngāti kangaru, a tongue-in-cheek label, and i'm ngāti rangiātea, a call to action.

and above all, i'm done doing morally objectionable shit and begging like a kurī for a scrap of fucking respect.

[ayeforscotland]

What is Dataflow?

This post is inspired by another post about the Crowd Strike IT disaster and a bunch of people being interested in what I mean by Dataflow. Dataflow is my absolute jam and I'm happy to answer as many questions as you like on it. I even put referential pictures in like I'm writing an article, what fun!

I'll probably split this into multiple parts because it'll be a huge post otherwise but here we go!

A Brief History

Our world is dependent on the flow of data. It exists in almost every aspect of our lives and has done so arguably for hundreds if not thousands of years.

At the end of the day, the flow of data is the flow of knowledge and information. Normally most of us refer to data in the context of computing technology (our phones, PCs, tablets etc) but, if we want to get historical about it, the invention of writing and the invention of the Printing Press were great leaps forward in how we increased the flow of information.

Modern Day IT exists for one reason - To support the flow of data.

Whether it's buying something at a shop, sitting staring at an excel sheet at work, or watching Netflix - All of the technology you interact with is to support the flow of data.

Understanding and managing the flow of data is as important to getting us to where we are right now as when we first learned to control and manage water to provide irrigation for early farming and settlement.

Engineering Rigor

When the majority of us turn on the tap to have a drink or take a shower, we expect water to come out. We trust that the water is clean, and we trust that our homes can receive a steady supply of water.

Most of us trust our central heating (insert boiler joke here) and the plugs/sockets in our homes to provide gas and electricity. The reason we trust all of these flows is because there's been rigorous engineering standards built up over decades and centuries.

For example, Scottish Water will understand every component part that makes up their water pipelines. Those pipes, valves, fitting etc will comply with a national, or in some cases international, standard. These companies have diagrams that clearly map all of this out, mostly because they have to legally but also because it also vital for disaster recovery and other compliance issues.

Modern IT

And this is where modern day IT has problems. I'm not saying that modern day tech is a pile of shit. We all have great phones, our PCs can play good games, but it's one thing to craft well-designed products and another thing entirely to think about they all work together.

Because that is what's happened over the past few decades of IT. Organisations have piled on the latest plug-and-play technology (Software or Hardware) and they've built up complex legacy systems that no one really knows how they all work together. They've lost track of how data flows across their organisation which makes the work of cybersecurity, disaster recovery, compliance and general business transformation teams a nightmare.

Some of these systems are entirely dependent on other systems to operate. But that dependency isn't documented. The vast majority of digital transformation projects fail because they get halfway through and realise they hadn't factored in a system that they thought was nothing but was vital to the organisation running.

And this isn't just for-profit organisations, this is the health services, this is national infrastructure, it's everyone.

There's not yet a single standard that says "This is how organisations should control, manage and govern their flows of data."

Why is that relevant to the companies that were affected by Crowd Strike? Would it have stopped it?

Maybe, maybe not. But considering the global impact, it doesn't look like many organisations were prepared for the possibility of a huge chunk of their IT infrastructure going down.

Understanding dataflows help with the preparation for events like this, so organisations can move to mitigate them, and also the recovery side when they do happen. Organisations need to understand which systems are a priority to get back operational and which can be left.

The problem I'm seeing from a lot of organisations at the moment is that they don't know which systems to recover first, and are losing money and reputation while they fight to get things back online. A lot of them are just winging it.

Conclusion of Part 1

Next time I can totally go into diagramming if any of you are interested in that.

How can any organisation actually map their dataflow and what things need to be considered to do so. It'll come across like common sense, but that's why an actual standard is so desperately needed!

[tabithatwo]

What do you think about the scene in ep1 where Shauna masturbates on her daughters bed while looking at pictures of her boyfriend? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I found it disturbingly similar to younger Shauna sleeping with Jackie's boyfriend

Oh hey, so this response is like perhaps over a year late but someone else asked me about this and I remembered I had 3/4 of this response drafted so hi I’m here now lmao

Anon, I do NOT think you’re overthinking this scene. I actually think there is so much room to think about this scene that a thesis could be written on it. It’s so layered and an incredibly bold choice on the show’s part to include it. It is our introduction to adult Shauna, and I think that the creators of the show clearly felt that it was very important.

This scene made me so uncomfortable as a first time casual viewer that I actually tried to rationalize it away. I remember saying aloud to the person I was watching with “No, that has to be her own childhood bedroom, right? She must be, like, visiting her aging parents?” Clearly I was ignoring the very ridiculous set design of Callie’s room entirely lol, but my mind wanted to find a different explanation. And it took me a while to come around to really loving Shauna as a first time viewer of the show, in part due to how much that scene shocked me.

All that to say, it is absolutely reasonable to find yourself very uncomfortable when thinking about that scene, as many people say that they do when they’re proclaiming that they wish it didn’t exist in the show. But I don’t think that means the scene should be ignored by any means. That discomfort is the point of the scene. Shauna is such a fascinating character, because she swings back and forth from shockingly depraved and cruel, to heartbreakingly kind and loving. She draws both the audience AND the other characters into this unpredictable back and forth with her, and it is easy for us AND them to forget what she is truly capable of when she is in one of her sweeter moments. That is what makes her one of the most fascinating characters of all time to me.

Okay, now we can get into my personal interpretation of this scene. I have always felt it was about Jackie. I think that was clear early on, but, after s2 aired, having more information about Shauna’s relationship with Callie did impact my interpretation of the scene and solidify some suspicions I had.

Shauna clearly does not see Callie as her daughter in any traditional sense. She tells Lottie as much, that she never could fully believe Callie was real and hers. And we see, with increasing clarity as the show goes on, that Shauna views Callie as a peer more than anything. Shauna has both stunted development and difficulty expressing affection. We see her tell Callie that it would’ve been easier if she HAD just had sex with the cop. That’s a very strong indicator of their dynamic. Shauna just doesn’t have the capacity to mother Callie.

That is important context because, with the scene in Callie’s bedroom, Shauna is recreating the thing she used to do when she was young and Jackie was alive. I don’t think she is even thinking about the fact that it’s her daughter’s boyfriend or bedroom, because she doesn’t even really think of Callie as her daughter much of the time. It’s so complex and muddled and, you guessed it, uncomfortable!

In my opinion, people are NOT ready for the intricacies of the ways Callie is a Jackie proxy for Shauna to be developed further. Like the show is establishing it pretty heavily, and I think in a very compelling way, but if it goes down that road more explicitly I have a feeling that people are not going to be able to separate the WAYS in which Shauna sees Jackie in her, if that makes sense.

I think s2 did have some compelling threads of this. Shauna caring for the Jackie corpse doll and getting frustrated and “hurting” her with the ear coming off scene. Shauna not being able to protect her, initiating and endorsing the consumption of her, then hinting at having fears that she’d hurt the baby when she was pregnant, losing the baby, worrying that they’d do to the baby what they did to Jackie, twisting it so much that she can’t help but believe they ate the baby too.

She associated the baby with Jackie very heavily. And in doing so, I think she parentified herself to Jackie in a really fascinating way, like Jackie was her first failure.

If she couldn’t care properly for Jackie, who loved her so much (and became an actual martyr and saint to her), and she couldn’t care for her children who were absolute innocents, then she must be the epitome of horrible and she should squash those caring instincts bc clearly they aren’t actually Good, type shit. That’s how I feel like Shauna spirals into her destructive behavior.

So what happens here, imo, is that Shauna doesn’t really see any of her relationships clearly. I don’t think she consciously thinks of Jackie as The Girl She Was In Love With, and I don’t think she consciously thinks of Callie as her daughter most of the time. Shauna just thinks of them both as people she has loved and failed, as well as people who piss her the fuck off and make her feel trapped in a life she doesn’t want.

She sees a lot of Jackie in Callie, and she acts out in really horrifying ways throughout the entire show to try and gain control, and this scene is one of them. Shauna has always used sex as a way to reclaim control, even when it is absolutely insanely inappropriate, and often when it isn’t at all about actual pleasure. We see more of this in s2, when she BRINGS JEFF TO THE ART STUDIO OF THE MAN SHE KILLED AND FUCKS HIM THERE (that was fucking INSANELY risky and destructive). With masturbating on Callie’s bed, looking at a pic of her bf, Shauna is acting from the same place she was when taking Jeff from Jackie in a way, and I get why that’s uncomfortable to watch. It makes me incredibly uncomfortable, it is SUPPOSED to!

But I think that we are viewing it with so much more logic and thought than Shauna is capable of applying. We draw conclusions from it that are based on a sane person, and Shauna is far from that. I think Shauna is briefly recreating multiple feelings and motivations that drove her to sleep with Jeff as a teenager. The sexual side of things is so wholly Jackie driven, she is constantly seeking ways to feel the way she felt when she was creating that proxy sexual connection with Jackie that she verbatim discusses with Jeff (which is so crazy btw not over that scene). But the side that relates to Callie is driven purely by the frustration and anger. Again, I don’t think Shauna has consciously thought about ANY of it, but if I had to interpret the driving emotions, then I think those would be the most likely.

And I think what it says about Shauna is that she is not living in reality in the slightest. You can not overstate the lack of conscious thought that goes into her actions when she does these things. She is acting on pure impulse, and without any certainty that anything is actually real.

She breaks my heart and this convo about the masturbation scene is so interesting to me because YEAH, that was a ROUGH introduction! and it took me rewatches to allow myself to dig into her character and that’s the point tbh.

On instinct, people either see the actions clearly and hate her, or obscure them to the point of forgetting they happened and love her. But it’s much harder to reckon with them and dig in and come out still loving her.

(I truly can’t believe I have to say this, but I was recently introduced to the fact that yj incest shippers exist, so disclaimer: this is NOT meant to be taken as a romantic or sexual interpretation of Shauna and Callie’s relationship at all. In fact, when I say that I don’t think people are ready for detangling the WAYS in which Shauna sees Jackie in Callie this is exactly what I mean. I just assumed people would wrongly assume it was That and be horrified. I didn’t consider the opposite, and I would like to continue not considering the opposite, so I will prob block anyone who engages with this in that way simply bc I do not want to see it and this is my social media lol)

[goingbuggy]

Good morrow my shuggy liege!

I was pondering if I should or shouldn’t ask but I hope it will not be too much bother to answer

It’s about one of your metas about the love and sacrifice Beautifully written I must say but reading through it again made me wondering how does buggy fall into the sacrifice themes of one piece?

It pains me to admit that once I’ve read 1082 I had many different feelings and one of them thought of buggy sacrifice as quite selfish in a way? Don’t get me wrong I’m sure came from him believing in shanks and the love he had for the boy! It just it felt in a way like he was burdening shanks with his own dreams

I’m happy he finally got the courage to follow his own path It’s beautiful and inspiring I just wonder if my interpretation is coming from anxiety or is actually true? Thank you and I’m sorry to sending this on anon

Hello, anon! Thank you for your kind words about my metas. Before I answer your question about where Buggy might fit into the wider themes of One Piece -- like sacrifice -- I think I should address your interpretation of 1082's events and compare them with mine.

I can understand why someone might conclude that Buggy's faith in Shanks is a burden of sorts, and ultimately selfish; after all, Shanks never asked for the weight of Buggy's expectations, and you could argue that Buggy's plan was to live out his dreams vicariously through Shanks. However, I think that there are some key points which entirely re-frame the situation.

Buggy didn't actually tell Shanks about what he did.

This isn't explicitly confirmed by the manga, but based on 1082's events and Shanks/Buggy's relationship timeline going forward, I can definitely make a strong case for their miscommunication in this regard.

Although we have Buggy's narration in 1082 to guide us through his flashback and enlighten us with his true feelings about Shanks, remember -- it's an internal monologue. The only thing Shanks knows is what Buggy tells him, and what Buggy tells him is not the full story. Look at this series of panels to see what I mean.

We have a very important contrast here -- Buggy's thoughts ("You're not the next generation's king?! I misjudged you, Shanks!" / "Don't you care about following in Captain Roger's footsteps?!"), versus what he actually says. ("You coward!" / "It's your fault I lost that treasure map!")

In classic Buggy fashion, we see him deflect from the truth; instead of explaining how much he believed in Shanks' potential, he brings up a petty grudge and insults Shanks out of disappointment, hurt, and anger/frustration. Nowhere do we see Buggy explicitly tell Shanks what/why he gave up. And this miscommunication is not only the heart of Buggy's sacrifice, but the exact reason why they split in the first place: Shanks did not tell Buggy what made him change his mind about going to Laughtale, and Buggy did not tell Shanks about his decision/dream.

I think this is key to understanding the way they navigate their interactions later down the line, in Marineford. Remember: Shanks believes that they split due to the whole map ordeal, which is not only a relatively lighthearted grudge to hold, but also very confusing from Shanks' perspective.

I love the curt answer he gives here, because it really reflects Shanks' limited understanding of what actually transpired between them that fateful day at Loguetown. Thus, it's also understandable why Shanks acts the way he does at Marineford. I highly doubt Shanks would be so casual if he knew Buggy's real reasons for parting ways. Hell, their split was so important to Shanks that he still remembers Buggy's gripe about the map 20+ years later -- and even uses the promise of one to draw Buggy back into rehashing things between them. (The anime expands on Shanks' confusion/limited understanding even more, but because we're dealing with the manga only, I'm not going to reference those added scenes.)

This interaction can seem quite confusing, but place it in the wider context I've just proposed, and it makes a lot more sense. Something fundamental has permanently shifted between them, but Shanks does not understand the gravity -- nor the real reason -- behind that change. And yet again, Buggy perpetuates this cycle of miscommunication by not telling him.

So, now that I've argued why I believe Buggy didn't tell Shanks about his true dream/decision to give up on said dream, why is it so important?

Well, this leads to my second point.

2. Buggy is a character primarily motivated by greed.

This statement does not need to be argued; it's as explicit as can be, because it has been well-established by Oda. In fact, it's very likely to be what people remember best about Buggy's character, in the midst of the massive narrative that One Piece has become. (I will touch upon this later, because this is exactly why I view Buggy's sacrifice as so impactful to the reader.)

Now, my last point:

3. Buggy is terrible at hiding his true intentions.

Buggy usually makes it quite obvious what he's hiding through blatant lies which hint to the truth, or even a direct slip of the tongue, like in Impel Down. This is partially for the sake of comedy/divulging necessary information to readers, but it's also a genuine aspect of his character which reinforces the comedy. Buggy's intentions are comically apparent to readers, so it's ridiculous to see his followers fall for his schemes.

These three points, in tandem, are exactly what makes 1082's reveal so impactful. Oda uproots everything we thought we knew about Buggy's character in order to give us the missing puzzle piece -- the reason why he is the way he is. This exact decision.

Buggy is a character motivated by greed, but he gave up on his dream, a pillar of freedom and existence in the One Piece world. He is self-absorbed, and yet he de-centered himself from the narrative. And for who, of all people? Shanks, the very man he claimed to despise in his first introduction. Are you starting to see the groundwork Oda's laying down here?

Buggy is notoriously bad at hiding the truth when he lies, and yet readers are blindsided by this reveal, over a thousand chapters after his first appearance. He kept it a secret, not just from Shanks, but from us. 1082 subverted our expectations and further developed Buggy's character in the process. It's a great display of what I love most about Oda's writing.

Before 1082, it would be difficult to claim where Buggy lies in One Piece's themes of sacrifice or dreams. But post-1082, it's a lot clearer. Oda has shown us that Shanks is just as important to Buggy as Buggy is to Shanks, and he's done it in the most effective way for a greedy character: by showing us that even Buggy is capable of sacrifice, when it's for someone he cares about. And what did he give up? His dream -- one of the most important things people have in One Piece.

Sure, it's possible to dismiss Buggy's decision as selfish, but remember: he didn't tell Shanks. He didn't expect anything in return. In a way, he has actually spared Shanks from feeling burdened; Shanks doesn't know the truth, and so he has no opportunity to feel guilt or responsibility for Buggy's decision. For a character like Shanks, who is defined by responsibility, this is also massively significant. Buggy's choice is not Shanks' fault, and by deflecting to trivial matters like the map, Buggy has -- intentionally or not -- lifted a possible weight from Shanks' shoulders. Shanks still feels the loss of their relationship, but instead of potential guilt, there is confusion and miscommunication.

So, no, I don't view Buggy's sacrifice as selfish. He did what he did because he truly believed in Shanks. He was willing to let Shanks become king and live out his dream, all without burdening Shanks with the truth. It's the antithesis of everything we've known about Buggy up until this point -- a decision without his greed, egomania, and overt schemes at the forefront. And if that's not a selfless act from Buggy, then I don't know what is.

[eyesanddragons]

Albatross, Animus Dragons and Preventable Tragedies

(Also Known as: This tragedy was not inevitable, let's talk about responsibility)

(CWs: Murder, Abuse)

So, Legends Darkstalker as a book has a lot of thoughts about fate and inevitability. Clearsight and Darkstalker try and fail to create an ideal future for the both of them, Fathom is scared that he can't prevent his animus magic from destroying is soul, and the readers know how all of this is going to end since Legends Darkstalker is a prequel to Arc 2.

In the midst of all this talk about inevitability and fate we have...Albatross. Someone who we've known about since Arc 1 and know how his story ends. He causes the Royal Seawing Massacre, his magic allegedly "driving him insane." What's interesting about Albatross is that when you really look at his life, this historical version of it falls short in many ways. The retelling of his life leave out important context, and notably, scrub any idea that someone or multiple someones might have caused him to act like this.

It's Albatross' fault in the end, it's his fault for losing control, his fault for being "insane."

But if we take an actual look at the story in Legends Darkstalker you find that this really isn't the case.

Albatross found out he was an animus in a very...unpleasant way. He enchanted a shell to bite the claws off his sister, Sapphire. This event was deeply traumatic and would stick with Albatross for his entire life. You might be wondering why Albatross didn't fix Sapphire's claws considering his powers and I'll get to one of the reasons in a bit since it's very important to what I'm trying to say, but @/kinkajouwof breaks it down over here.

In short, most likely the reason why Albatross didn't fix it at the start is due to uncertainty if he really Could do it and because Albatross and Sapphire were terrified.

The reason more important to my point though is that Lagoon Actively Benefited from this fear. When Lagoon became Queen she would hold this action over Albatross whenever he was unwilling to do things to guilt him into following what she wanted him to do.

"This is a waste of time, Lagoon," he said. "Nobody ever tested me, but we figured out quickly enough what I could do. If any of them have a shred of power, surely they would of known by now. Or it will become obvious, sooner or later." "I'd prefer sooner," the queen said silkily. "If we find another animus in the tribe, that would make us twice as powerful, which would be quite useful given how the Mudwings and Rainwings have been behaving lately. And the earlier we find her, the sooner you can start to train her, and the sooner I can start to use her." "Besides," she added in a lower voice, so Fathom had to strain to hear her, "I think we would all prefer to discover our next animus in a less...dramatic fashion than you were discovered. Don't you?" Albatross flinched, just slightly. He cast a skeptical eye across the young. "My power is more than enough for whatever you need. I've given you everything you've asked for, haven't I? And I don't want an apprentice."

Afterwards Lagoon commands Albatross to start the test but you can see what I mean. Lagoon actively threatens Albatross and Exploits Him, and wants to find Other Animus Dragons to Exploit. He is not just a Subject to Lagoon, he is an Object to Lagoon. Non-sexual objectification.

She plans to do the same thing to another animus, Lagoon's rule was built on Exploiting the powers of the people she could Control. She wants to find them young so she could mold them into the tools she wanted them to be earlier. She wants to condition them to treat themselves as objects Now.

This treatment comes to a head during the banquet. Where Lagoon once again holds what happened to Sapphire over his head, while also threatening to Replace Him.

"Here is our first animus," Queen Lagoon said to the Skywings, who seemed to have figured that out themselves, judging by the looks of terror on their faces. "My brother, Albatross. We were just talking this morning about what his next project should be. I'm thinking big this time. Something that makes me invulnerable, perhaps. Or something that kills any dragon who might be a threat to me." Beyond Albatross, over the couches, Splash stiffened, and Fathom saw her crush one of the hibiscus blossoms between her claws. He glanced around and saw his father put a wing around Manta, who had gone pale. "Yes," Albatross said. "Although you recall I wasn't exactly enthused about any of those ideas." "Then it's lucky you're not my only animus dragon," Queen Lagoon said coldly. Fathom felt a shiver all the way down to the tip of his tail. If she asked him to do a spell like that, would he? Would he obey his queen and put his own mother in danger? Or disobey her, and perhaps put everyone he cared about in even worse danger? What would she do to Indigo If I ever said no to her? Albatross stopped right in front of the queen, snout-to-snout with her. Fathom couldn't read his face. He looked as though he'd been carved from stone, any emotions chipped away. "Do you think you're done?" Queen Lagoon said to him softly. "Do you think you'll ever be done atoning for what you did to Sapphire? It's not going to end Albatross. You'll always be mine."

This is a bit of a blunder on Lagoon's part since Albatross Kills her! She's revealed that she is Never going to let him go, that no matter how hard he works he's never going to escape. No matter what he does he will be an Object to her. Fight, Flight or Freeze, stay here and be worked to death killing hundreds of people or Escape Now.

And Albatross...chose Fight.

Note that Albatross literally says right here that he doesn't Want to make Lagoon Invulnerable, he doesn't Want to give her the power to kill people.

When he starts killing other people it's not because he became ax-crazy. He killed the Queen, no matter how horrible and cruel she was their all going to defend her...and they've never thought about him. They've never cared for him. To them he was also an Object.

So...he kills them too.

Now I'm not saying He should of killed all those people, murder is bad actually. But this is a Consequence of Lagoon and the rest of Seawing society's actions. This is the direct, real, bloody consequence of treating a person like an object designed to serve their every whim.

This wasn't something he was doomed to be, this is something that has a tangible cause and effect. The system and the way it treated him is What Caused This.

Except, none of the Seawings who survived Want to face that. They don't Want to accept responsibility for that. Why should they accept the responsibility and guilt of having lead one of their own to believe that murder was the only way to escape a truly horrific and abusive situation...when they have a perfectly convenient scapegoat. Remember...Albatross is an object. Lagoon died, not because she perpetuating a horrible abusive situation that her society allowed her to do due to the absolute power she was given, but because she handled Albatross Improperly. Animus magic is just a dangerous thing, and the people who can use it are dangerous tools. This isn't Their Fault for treating a person like an object, it's the fault of improper usage of a tool.

It's a more convenient story for everyone...except for Fathom who proceeds to be treated horribly and drown himself in guilt and shame for being Dangerous.

Seawing Society caused something horrible and instead of trying to fix it, turned their backs and pretended they did nothing wrong. When we see Anemone their doing the Exact Same Thing to her. She is an object, a weapon of war, and she will be treated as such. Anemone believes she's doomed to become evil and almost Kills her family out of the belief that she is doomed to become a mass murderer.

Albatross' Massacre was preventable, and that's what makes it tragic.

[iraprince]

I love the entire concept of Cookie... the look, the fashion, the gender... Would you mind telling us a little more about him? I'm also intrigued about why she's named Cooking with Gorgeous!

HI i would LOVE to talk about george thank you so much. also this makes me realize i've never actually sat down and just made a post unabashedly infodumping at length abt an oc before and it seems silly that i haven't. i ask only for all dear readers to please temper their expectations for this post with the knowledge that i just smoked half a joint before sitting down to answer it. a small one. but still. anyway

FIRST OF ALL FOR THE UNACQUAINTED THIS IS COOKING WITH GORGEOUS, aka cookie or george for short. he uses he/him and she/her pronouns interchangeably!

hi sorry that's not cookie that's a horse in a bridal veil that i. found in my stuff while trying to scroll and find my cookie art. i just got distracted and had to show you. okay no for real here's cookie

he's the character i'm playing in a playtest campaign of the absolutely mesmerizing sapphicworld, an in-development ttrpg!!! and if i'm going to be talking about cookie i feel like i HAVE to say i think a huge amount of her charm and dazzle and charisma comes directly from the charm and dazzle and charisma of the setting i created her for. i know i am laying it on really thick right now but that is on purpose. i want, desperately and unashamedly, for this game to get really popular bc 1. it's genuinely that good. and it's not even DONE yet and 2. i want everyone to get into it so that everyone will make sapphicworld characters and then i'll get to see everyone's sapphicworld characters.

EDIT i'm scrolling back up here and adding a readmore bc this is already getting so long lol. you asked for "a little more" and apparently i have graciously decided this means "literally every fact about cookie that exists in my brain"

SO a lot of the info/tidbits i haven't shared about cookie are i guess gameplay-specific stuff... his title (which is like a class/playbook) is "The Noble Sweetheart," though in sapphicworld "nobility" no longer has anything to do with wealth or class, and is instead entirely about amassing a court purely via devotion/popularity; her subculture (which is like, Who You Hang Out With; drifters, goths, poets, debauchers, cowpokes, etc) is Babe; and her kind (which is like ancestries but in sapphicworld is really just like, a physical form, which u can change more or less at will) is Lunarthrope, which is basically a werewolf!! or more broadly a furry, since u always look like whatever were-animal you are 24/7. just MORE at night, tho i suppose i don't represent that aspect much in my cookie art... ANYWAY i am restraining myself from just sitting here and like. transcribing her entire character sheet. but basically what all this means is that cookie's role in the world (at least at the beginning of the campaign) is "Professionally — no, VOCATIONALLY Hot Person who everyone loves so so so so so so much." cookie really enjoys this role.

he's named cooking with gorgeous because he's an avid cook, and he wants to share that with you, and he's gorgeous!! though honestly the cooking hasn't ended up as important to his character as it was when i first came up with him, lol — but my initial concept was kind of like, what's the equivalent of a bouncy normie recipe blogger/lifestyle influencer but in the context of the lush horny trans deathless psychedelic universe of sapphicworld. and it's cooking with gorgeous, a doggirl dyke with big blue boobs (six of them!!) who is so devastatingly cute and darling that a bunch of people just kind of pledge their fealty to him for no real reason other than he feeds them. and is cute

also her name is def influenced by the fantastic names of many canon sapphicworld npcs! like, quick example list of some npc names off the top of my head: the booty commie, death cybernetic, princess eureka!, the culinary goof (whom cookie dislikes. btw.), pizza friday (whom cookie loves!!!)

cookie is very very determined, and she's ALMOST always very confident. even when she isn't feeling confident, she's still very good at forcing herself to keep putting one foot in front of the other — maybe just while screaming or crying or uncontrollably barking or at least very ardently complaining. he has a tendency to be spoiled and, like, tactless-via-obliviousness, so sometimes he can be grating to interact with, and he has a petty/vindictive streak; but in general he's an AGGRESSIVELY kind person and usually aims all his shrill, cheerful stubbornness directly toward the goal of refusing to accept anything but the best for everyone.

at the beginning of our campaign cookie has JUST received a brand new castle!!!! (chateau gorgeous.) which he doesn't actually "own" bc, remember, no wealth or class in sapphicworld, but he's the ENTHUSIASTIC new caretaker and is chomping at the bit to renovate it so ppl can live there and he can throw a bunch of magnificent parties and basically continue living exactly as he has been, But Even More Fabulous. obviously this is exactly when the main plot threat of the campaign shows up and spoils everything and compels cookie to go on his First Ever Adventure!!!!!! she HAS to save the world otherwise NOBODY will be able to go to the first big party at chateau gorgeous :((((

at this point to prevent myself from just like, giving you guys a play by play of the entire campaign so far i am going to just start listing every cookie fact i can think of as bullet points

🎀 he owns a magical sword in the shape of a giant microplane. it's called The Microplane. he pronounces this "mee-crow-plah-nay"

🎀 george desperately wants to resurrect The Dog-Lich, an entity that once ruled over all beasts from its palace on the moon but was murdered and torn to pieces in a cosmic war far in the past. her attitude towards this desire is 50% devoted lunar cultist, 50% parasocially obsessive twitter stan

🎀 this isn't really a cookie fact but going back to how his title is The Noble Sweetheart — just for a glimpse at party composition, his fellow party members' titles are The Intimate Scholar, The Tentacle Advocate, and The Tw*nk Controversial (the * is the canon spelling).

^ aforementioned tw*nk. its name is Mwah ("pronounced like the kiss you blow at someone you just fucked over"). mwah is played by @/squiddelyfather on twitter!

🎀 mwah and cookie used to be very, very tight, BEFORE mwah became the tw*nk controversial. now that it's so.... you know.... controversial, well. they're still very close, but it has gotten a little stilted and weird (and watching them slowly un-weird it together as the campaign goes on has been one of my fav roleplay experiences ever honestly)

🎀 cookie's other adventuremates, skarligge and delaryn, are both very indulgent towards him. delaryn acts the most grumpy/dismissive about it but is honestly sometimes the worst about spoiling cookie out of anyone in the party (skarligge's player is twt@/clown_dream and delaryn's is twt@/glaiveguisarme and hey while im at it our fantastic gm is the sapphicworld dev, twt@/ddemoneclipse. hi guys i hope u don't mind me chattering abt ur ocs here lol it's just hard to talk abt the best of cookie w/o bringing up everyone else's characters and roleplay also!!!)

🎀 cookie is very VERY sensitive and will burst into tears at the drop of a hat. the precursor to this is her eyes getting So So So Big And Wet And Round. one of my favorite bits to menace the other party members with is when something is not going cookie's way i will lean into my mic and say "cookie's eyes are getting so so so big. they're getting so big and wet and round and shiny. they're so so round and fucking big her eyes are like big wet black glass marbles" and this is like kryptonite to them. this is like getting hit with deadly radiation

🎀 oh speaking of fashion!!!! one of cookie's perks from being a Babe is that she can always change her look whenever she wants. she will ALWAYS have whatever outfit she needs and can quickchange instantly. wait this reminds me i have a bunch of seasonal holiday outfits sketched out and i don't think i've ever posted them here but it'll only let me put one more image in this post. well here have this one

🎀 okay well suddenly i have forgotten all other george facts so that's all for now!!! from now on i will try to just dump oc facts like this more often tho this is really fun. ty for getting me going lol!!!

[lemotmo]

I'm so happy she answered this 😅😅😅. I have no words. Yes to all. Love. Love. Love. They're so mad.

Q. The reason we can't be free of the Buddie nonsense is because the entire cast including the show runner has been conditioned to mention them even when it isn't necessary. It was a question about BUCK and TOMMY. Their relationship. Their progress. There was absolutely no reason for him to mention Eddie. Give us a break. He's ridiculous and you all are ridiculous.

A. He mentioned Eddie because Buck's entire relationship with Tommy is about Eddie. Eddie and Buck have been the entire point of that relationship. It only exists to put in motion Buck and Eddie's eventual relationship, which after today seems even more likely. The only reason Tommy is there is to lead Buck to Eddie. And everyone who watched the actual canon scenes that aired, and paid attention to the actual context of what was being shown, has been telling you all this for months now. You were sold a tissue of lies for personal profit and self promotion. And you wilfully chose to believe the lie over what you were actually being shown and told by the show. That's on you and that's on him. You paid him to tell you what you wanted to hear. And he was clearly punished in some capacity for it because he's hung you all out to dry. None of this has ever been about Tommy. It has always been about Eddie. And it was obvious. They weren't subtle about it. And judging by your message, and the many other messages currently sitting in my ask box, you all know that. And you're angry today because it sounds like you're about to watch jealous Eddie. Which sounds delicious quite frankly. It's always been about Eddie. So you'll see your guy in some capacity this season but his entire reason for being will be so Eddie is the one who ends up with Buck. And, for the record, your guy knew that as he was taking your money. Redirect your anger where it actually belongs, anon. And then enjoy all the Eddie content.

Thank you Nonny! I appreciate this!

Okay, I don't think this needs any extra thoughts to be honest. I've already talked about the Buck, Tommy and Eddie parts of this article in a previous post. If you're interested you can find it here.

Ali is a lot more straightforward than I was in my post though.😄😋

Enjoy!

IMPORTANT! Please don't repost this ask and/or a link that leads straight to my Tumblr account on Twitter or any other social media. Thank you!

Heads up! For anyone who is giving me the shifty eyes for reposting Ali's updates instead of reblogging. Read this.

Remember, no hate in comments, reblogs or inboxes. Let's keep it civil and respectful. Thank you.

If you are interested in more of Ali’s posts, you can find all of her posts so far under the tag: anonymous blog I love.

[skaldish]

Could you expand upon your ideas around how Venerating a Deity doesn’t mean trying to embody what they represent? I was raised in a church that literally said the word “worship” meant “to try to become like”. So I’m fascinated by how you could worship a deity of a thing and not want to make more of that thing out in the world. I want to learn a new paradigm

Happy to! I love talking about paradigms.

Firstly…

Different religions and denominations conceptualize "worship" differently.

This includes "what you do to worship" but also includes ideas around "what gives worship its value."

"Trying to become like a deity" is something I've seen specifically associated with Evangelism and Fundamentalism (perhaps others, but this is what I know). It's derived from the idea that Christians are warriors of god and that it's their duty to act as his voice and hands on Earth. This is derivative of their doctrinal idea that they need to "save" people by any means necessary. (Teaching people to define who they are through God makes people dependent on God for a core sense of self, which is a huge reason why it's so psychologically awful to leave these denominations. It robs you of everything you are and leaves you with no way of creating yourself anew.

It's one thing to admire a deity and aspire to adopt some of their attributes as a point of personal growth; it's another altogether to teach people that they need to replace their inherent personality with a prescribed ideological construct. I loathe it entirely.)

Now, Catholics don't tend to interpret worship as the act of "trying to be like God." Given what I've observed and what I know of their ideology, worship for them is largely a function of sacrifice. You sacrifice your time, skills, wealth, etc. to God, because giving up things that are difficult to give up is how you show you really mean your devotion.

(I've seen this behavior in Heathens, actually, when they do things like buy top-shelf mead only to pour every last drop of it out on the ground for Odin or similar.)

I also take a lot of issues with this form of worship because I know why it exists: Extortion. The Church learned hundreds of years ago that guilt-tripping people out of their money (in exchange for salvation, an unfalsifiable concept that they neither had to prove nor procure) was an excellent way to get rich and powerful with impunity.

Clearly you caught me on a day I'm feeling extra-spicy towards Christianity. But I bring those two up in detail because I know a lot of my followers come from these backgrounds, and having more points of differentiation is important.

See, the real pitfall here lies in thinking that Christianity represents the "default" for how religions work, when in reality it's the grand exception, given all of human history.

The other religions I know about (with the exception of Judaism) are distinctly polytheistic: Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, and various flavors of Paganism. These all have different models of worship because they all have different, culturally-informed philosophies about how divinity works. Religions are inseparable from the cultures that create them for this reason, and why switching religions is a function of adopting a completely new mindset, not just a new set of gods to venerate.

Norse Heathen Worship

Since this is a Heathen blog I'm obligated to talk a bit about this.

How we worship as Norse Heathens is still a matter of debate, but that's because we're still figuring out how to define "worship" within the context of how it operates as a spirituality.

At no point did Norse Heathenry have a governing body, a religious figure, or a holy book to guide practice. Things developed organically, unique to their time-period and location, and stories were (and are) passed down via oral tradition rather than written down.

Many Heathens mistakenly think we're missing religious mandates, hence why they're so bent on trying to find them or devise them. I think this is a mistake.

A religion's architecture derives from the values, worldviews, and agendas of the culture/people behind it. The reason why a Christian's relationship with God looks like a Lord/servant dynamic is because the religion was shaped by lawmakers, and "loyalty towards the law" was a value they wanted to instill in the general population. Christianity was used to shape politics, so politics in turn shaped Christianity.

Norse Heathenry didn't have this function, so rather than reflecting political values, it reflects cultural ones. The stories are allegorical representations of cultural ideas, which themselves are based in the context of animism—the idea that everything operates as an ecosystem, and divinity is inseparable from that ecosystem.

This is all to say that the way Heathens worship is largely a byproduct of how they interface with that ecosystem. How this looks is something we choose based on what we find connection with, as opposed to mandates given to us.

Some people might find this kind of answer unsatisfying because it doesn't lead to any directive on "how to worship," but that might be because we're used to thinking of worship as a "duty," as opposed to what is actually, anthropologically is: A type of enrichment.

How I Worship

The way I go about worship is the same way I go about any kind of social bonding; through collaboration. In my mind, venerating deities is functionally identical to socializing with them, and like any socialization, how that's done varies from deity to deity. Anything I do in my practice—offerings, devotional art, etc—is informed by what I perceive them liking.

(Keep in mind I'm a hard polytheist, and I'm a hard polytheist because it's the only descriptor that could describe how I experience deities; as beings with autonomy divorced from my own will. A soft polytheist would conceptualize this entire thing differently.)

I also personally conceptualize "veneration" "devotion" and "worship" all differently, which is why you'll see me use the word "veneration" to describe what most people call "worship:"

Veneration is the general state of reverence or respect for something we hold spiritually important, such as a spirit, deity, or ancestor.

Devotion is a kind of enthusiastic dedication that emerges from love.

Worship is a ritual activity done as a gift for a god.

But this is just how I understand things for myself. They're not a reflection of how these things are thought of in Norse Heathenry. (In fact, they're mostly a product of the fact I initially learned about worship through observation, rather than experience. But I figured I'd bring it up anyway to provide an additional dimension to your paradigm explorations.)

I'm not sure what else to say so, uh…feel free to follow up with questions in case you want me to dive more into something.

[lopposting]

translation notes on deleted lines + why translation is truly so important

[long post]

Hello everyone... As I'm sure you've seen, the deleted lines here that were leaked have been a wrecking ball on both this fanbase and my heart!!! (thank you to the users who put that together.)

OKOKOK more translation notes!!! This is a little too out of my level in Korean for me tbh, but I'll try my best to explain my point of view.

기억은 없지만 저 역시 당신의 아들임니다. I may not remember, but I'm still your son.

Pino is using the form Dangshin (당신) here and not father (as in 기억은 없지만 저 역시 아버지의 아들입니다?), probably because he isn't directly talking to Geppetto, and it's a general formal version of "you".

Grammatical notes aside and getting to the main point, this line shows that translation is SO finicky and SO important

This line is such a completely crazy example of how translation can change an entire story; how one word can make something entirely different.

Let's look at that line with the two different interpretations.

기억은 없지만 저 역시 당신의 아들입니다. I may not remember, but I'm still your son.

Alternatively, where 역시 (yeokshi) is interpreted as "TOO":

기억은 없지만 저 역시 당신의 아들입니다. I may not have [his] memories, but I'm your son, too.

Here's the thing... "but I'm still your son, too"...

that "too" changes EVERYTHING. That little three letter word, at the end of that sentence changes everything, and has the power to steer an entire story. Because why would he need to add the "too" modifier if Geppetto only had one single child?

At my level, I cannot say that it's one or the other with 100% certainty. Translation always requires some form of interpretation, and either one is "accurate". But, as you know, a translation being "accurate" is often not even enough. [note: In the process of writing this post, and giving it some thought. I would say that yes, considering the context, the second translation is more accurate (because in this context he is referring to Carlo's memories when he uses the word "역시") ]

Deleted lines are deleted for a reason

Over the many days I've been deliberating over this (lol Lies has taken me heart and mind), I've realized that maybe I've gotten caught up in a bit of survivorship bias. As in, I think I was focusing on the content of the deleted lines, and not that they were deleted in the first place.

[Among other reasons,]

I think these lines were likely deleted because the (almighty gods) Developers wanted to keep it more ambiguous and up to interpretation whether or not P is Carlo. It's a very intriguing choice. That being said, I really appreciate that people shared this so we can see the creative decisions that were even made in the first place.

I'm reminded of Antonia's letter, because I still find it that profound. (she really was the best ;_;) When she sees Pino, she doesn't mention carlo at all to Pino, lady Antonia just treats him exactly as he is.

And her final letter is so touching. Perhaps guessing what complicated emotions Pino might be feeling about his relation to Carlo.. she tells him, not that he is or isn't Carlo, but that

"Whether you are that child or not -"

he is worthy of love and that he is precious.

"Whether you are Carlo or not, You are precious to me."

Director Choi's message on the Special Release Vinyl:

This is from discogs, the quality is hard to read so I've transcribed this portion here.

Lies of P harbors a plethora of concealed enigmas and artful subtleties, and there are no wrong interpretations to them. Piece together the scattered fragments and unravel the puzzle to craft a narrative of what is true to you. ... With sincerest regards, Lies of P Director CHOI JIWON

Seems to directly confirm that some things being left up for interpretation is by design. Very very neat!! I love it!! :)

[vaspider]

re the ai art thing: there are absolutely some shitty things going on with ai art at the moment, but i feel like this whole thing would benefit from more clarity on the bad actors involved so that arguments could be meaningfully directed at them instead of the nebulous concept of "ai art". i suspect elon musk's name is being used as a buzzword here - while he was one of many founders of openai, he resigned from the company before things like gpt and dall-e even came into existence, so i find posts that talk as though he's still actively involved to be suspect. second, it's entirely possible for an ai art generator to create something thats no more derivative of existing work than a human using it as inspiration. i agree it's still not 100% ethically pure, but at that point it sort of becomes a philosophical debate, not a practical one. a lot of ai art bots DO use significant parts of work, though, and the medical photo story would be horrifying even if ai art wasn't involved - these are specific bad actors, specific people who put private photos into the public domain, specific people who don't do the due diligence in making sure their model doesn't violate the copyright and forgery boundaries we already have in place, specific users who choose to generate derivative art for unethical purposes, and aiming this very justified anger at them is likely to bring about a lot more positive change.

No, Elon Musk's name is being used because he has a very long and very loud history of thinking he shouldn't need to credit artists or writers and that he should be able to use anything in any way he wants and people should be grateful that he did. That context is very important when talking about the intention behind the Tech Bro Collage Machine.

Second, no. It is not possible for an AI to create anything that isn't 100% derivative. There are a few reasons for this:

"AI," that is, actual artificial intelligence, does not exist. This is not nitpicking terminology, this is extremely important and crucial. What we are talking about isn't a brain. It doesn't think. It doesn't create. It cannot create. We may wish to think that it can create - humans love to wonder and we love to anthropomorphize everything, but no. Calling it "AI" is a branding decision, and propaganda. It isn't fact. AI doesn't create anything, first of all, because AI doesn't exist.

Tech-Bros Discover Collages™️ is a program. An algorithm. It does not create any more than a paint mixer creates purple paint when the Home Depot worker puts red and blue paint into a can and loads it into the paint mixer. All it can do it take what it is given and smash it together over and over and over again. And that is - in a very simplistic but also very real way - all that TBDCs do.

I'm very sorry, but androids do not yet dream of electric sheep, computers don't think, and comparing the pixel output of a machine that's just as likely to barf put a man with three fingers growing out of his cheek as it is a "masterpiece" that, if you unfocus your eyes and ignore the watermark artifacts and look past the weird smeary edges and all of the other tells, almost looks kinda like it's not AI art to the output of an actual working artist is absolutely facile. I genuinely cannot believe that people are actually making this argument. Like, I really can't. No, the computer isn't thinking and it can't actually create anything. You're playing with an extremely complicated kaleidoscope loaded with millions of dollars worth of stolen art, intended to help billionaires further defraud everyone else by replacing artists with digital garbage. That's it. That's all. It is nothing more. It cannot be anything more.

I really do wonder what people think is going to happen, here. Do y'all really think this is going to do anything but make it impossible for small artists to make money?

People are already selling "prompts lists" on Etsy as if that is original art, which it is not. People who have gotten really good at playing with the kaleidoscope have gone on long huffy rants about how they shouldn't have to reveal their prompts because they put work into coming up with that specific prompts list... all written without a shred of self-awareness or realization of irony.

I genuinely don't want the answer, here, because as a working artist, I am really exhausted of people trying to defend the destruction of the livelihood I've poured myself into, and the destruction of my friends' livelihoods, too, but I want you to ask yourself (quietly, in your head, and if you want to post about it, do it on your blog, don't put it here) what you think the end result of all of this is going to be.

Do you think this is going to result in some grand new wave of art democratization? It will not. Do you think computers can really create? They cannot. Or do you think instead this is going to lead to a lot of artists no longer being able to find sufficient work as the Fiverr/Uber/Amazonification of everything combined with AI art means that a lot of the meat-and-potatoes commissions and art jobs dry up, because why would you pay someone $100 to draw you a really original picture of your OC with their hours of labor and years of experience when you can get Midjourney to make you one in minutes ✨️for free✨️?

While y'all are busy talking about how computers are doing something not at all different from the human mind (lol), you're hammering the livelihood of a lot of people into the ground, duped by the same people currently burning Twitter to the ground, lighting piles of money on fire as crypto, and minting NFTs. This is just the next thing in a long line of tech bro scams.

Stop falling for it. You're fucking shit up and I'm tired.

[deeply-unserious-fellow]

I've made. S o m a n y. Attempts at analyzing Vox's relationship with the fuckin Angel & Val bullshit. So many. But they always come out sounding like fucking word salad. So instead, I'm going to try making a bulleted list of all the different pieces of evidence I've gathered, and then simply not draw a conclusion because I don't fUCKING KNOW-

Vox does not like Angel

Vox seemed excited at the prospect of Angel quitting(despite knowing he physically can't?)

Like his eyes *literally* lit up he was so excited(the same way Velvette's did when she was yelling about wrist ruffles & Carmilla's did during Whatever It Takes)

Saying "Angel quit?" could've been him joking, but between his expression, tone of voice, and the context surrounding the line, I don't think that's the case?

That line is weird as fuck man...

There are two reasons Vox doesn't like Angel: Val constantly freaking the fuck out over minor Angel-related things & he's probably jelous of how much space Angel takes up in Val's brain

Vox does not seem to care for Angel's well being, probably viewing him as nothing more then a cash cow

I say "seem" and "probably" because it IS significantly more likely that Vox doesn't give a shit, but we haven't seen Angel & Vox interacting one on one yet, so there's still a chance I could be wrong and Vox does care in some capacity? Again significantly more likely he doesn't I'm just trying to cover all my bases here

Which speaking of- we don't know how Angel feels about Vox at all? Like aside from Vox's cameo in Poison(Angel's pseudo-dream sequence), we don't actually get Angel's perspective on Vox. Ever.

Like I'd assume Angel doesn't LIKE him just by virtue of his relationship with Val but there's no real way to tell?

Vox(seemingly) hasn't done anything to deal with Val's weird issues with Angel

He probably can't get rid of Angel entirely because of the loss in profits

But he also hasn't attempted to limit Angel's ability to leave the studio or anything, and he hasn't done anything to Val that might discourage his irrational behavior

He's actually pretty hands off when it comes to all of the other Vees' shit just like. In general. The only time we see him interfering is when Val is destroying Velvette's stuff

Vox doesn't seem to give a shit that Angel moved out of the studio

Like he isn't even happy about it just true neutrality-

He only STARTS caring when Val starts threatening to shoot up a building about it(read: when his image is now on the line)

The look Vox gives Angel in Poison just kind of proves he. Doesn't like Angel. And is kissing(but appearently not dating???) Valentino.

The fact that the blood drips, which are usually on the left side of his mouth, are coming off of the right instead during this scene FEELS important but that's another topic entirely so I won't go into it here

Also, as stated before, Poison is a pseudo-dream sequence, so this scene might be less about how Vox views Angel and more about how Angel views Vox

But if that's the case, I cannot for the life of me decipher what the fuck Angel feels about Vox from this one shot so it's pretty much useless for now 💀💀💀

Alright that's it. I tried my best to be impartial and just write down what we know about the characters while also pointing out any gaps in information we might have, but if you think I'm being too generous or too harsh with any of these bullets and feel the need to tell me, PLEASE be nice about it and also use tone indicators. I don't wanna sound like a whiney baby or whatever the fuck but I genuinely cannot handle feeling like a stranger is yelling at me rn and tone indicators help me a LOT in that department.

[elekinetic]

hi! i was just wondering what your opinions are on hopper, like, as a character? i've just seen so much slander for him and i was wondering about your own thoughts on it since you seem to have a good grasp of the show's characters. also, no pressure to answer if you don't want to, i'm just genuinely curious :)

hi!! i am so honored you asked!

so. hopper’s a shithead. i love him.

no but actually so, i think hopper is one of the most interesting characters in the show, and i think a lot of the hopper slander (and character slander in general) comes from having fundamentally different approaches to the show. and I don’t think there’s any one correct way to watch the show, but there’s a difference between looking at characters as people who are accountable for their actions and characters as vehicles for communicating themes and ideas.

(I wanna start with a disclaimer that I’m not really gonna touch how he exists as copaganda, especially as a character, who really does not subvert the hero cop trope. That’s a separate post and a whole other conversation — one that’s important when contextualizing our discussion of hopper, but for now I’m just gonna focus on his characterization and behavior within the context of the show. alright, moving on.)

hopper is not always the nicest person and doesn’t always make the right call, but he is so caring and protective of the people he loves, and he believes in goodness in the world. i think it’s really interesting to see that over the course of the show, part of his journey is relearning that there are good things, and that even though it’s painful, those things are still worth protecting. (it’s less so that he’s learning that those things are worth protecting and it’s more so that he’s learning to be okay with the pain of it.)

after losing sarah, hopper shuts everything down and everything out. and like, obviously. of course he would. there’s this really interesting part of his spinoff novel that talks about how when he was in the war, he was stationed in an area that exposed him to chemicals that could lead to birth defects or infertility in the future. and then he comes home and has sarah anyway, and then she dies of cancer. obviously he feels really guilty about that. I think it’s really really important to remember that that is a key part of his experience when it comes to analyzing hopper and considering his behavior.

i was re-watching the first couple episodes of season two with abby strangeswift and bats demobatman, specifically el’s conversation with him about wanting to go out for halloween. and i was really frustrated, right, because here’s this girl that’s been trapped in a lab her entire life and just wants to feel normal, and there’s really no end in sight to this new kind of confinement. but then abby and bats were talking about how there’s really no other choice and especially after losing sarah, he is not willing to put el at risk.

I think this haunts him through the next couple of seasons. he becomes so blinded by his need to protect and keep el safe that he loses nuance. especially with a kid as extraordinary and as hunted as el, hopper is so on guard all the time. and that’s frustrating! because then we see him as the reason el loses out on experiences that she should get to have. she should get to be a normal kid and do normal things like go to the mall and kiss her boyfriend etc. etc. but hopper is so keenly aware of the fact that el is not a normal kid and the world is not safe for her. he’s not willing to be the reason another daughter dies.

like i said, i think hopper makes bad decisions and doesn’t always consider the agency of the people he loves, but i think the reason that we see so many parallels between him and mike is because they are both protectors. fundamentally, i think their arcs are the same. it’s them learning they don’t always have to be the protector, that they can trust the people they love to love them back without being a defensive force. learning there’s a way to be protective without being overbearing or imposing on agency. 

and listen, hopper fucks up a lot. I don’t think the way he speaks to Joyce season three is OK and I think he owes her an apology. and I think he and eI will need to have a real conversation about why he acts the way he does and why he put the rules he does in place. (I don’t think people understand just how much danger el is in even when the upside down shit isn’t happening.)

hopper makes a lot of sense to me and his inner conflict is really, really interesting. if you’re looking at him as a person, then, yeah, it gets a lot harder to excuse his actions because they do cause harm, tangible harm. but i read an article recently that i think articulated really well why our progress as a society about discussing mental health hasn’t really solve the problems we need it to solve; that, despite introducing these therapeutic terms and emphasizing boundary setting, we still center ourselves in our experience of the world. (when you fuck up, youre learning—when your friend fucks up, they’re a narcissist, kind of thing.)

so let’s let both things be true. that hopper is not always making the best decisions and doesn’t always say or do the right thing, that he should apologize for that (which he has on occasion).  but he’s also learning and he should be given the space and grace for that. and yes, he’s 40. but people don’t stop learning and growing when they’re 40. you don’t hit 25 and suddenly you’re a perfect person. and this is a man who has been through a war, lost his four-year-old daughter to cancer he is sure he caused, struggled with addiction and depression, and at this point has been literally tortured by russians for months. 

but then again, hopper isn’t person. he’s a character. hopper does not exist to be accountable to his actions. he exists to convey a story, to communicate ideas. stories like this aren’t interesting without complicated people. he adds complexity to the plot and the relationships between characters. he informs el’s relationship with society and adults in her life. he gives joyce the space to be taken care of, to not be the mom, the hustler, the protector of her own family all day everyday. he fills out hawkins as a three-dimensional place, where not everyone is a wheeler-esque suburban wet dream. he shows that there is a path out of grief and depression. he shows that it’s important to lean on people and that isolation will just lead to further suffering. It shows that protecting other people is important, but so is moderation and communication. how do we learn those lessons without a character making mistakes that hopper does?

anyway, those are my brief scattered thoughts on hopper. i think he deserves more grace than he’s given by people in fan spaces, but i understand peoples hesitation to treat him as a beloved character the way they would treat el or lucas or will. he’s a very real character and doesn’t really fit the schema of a fave, i think. and i think the way people communicate their appreciation for his character doesn’t fit easily into the way people show their appreciation for other characters in fans spaces.

I hope this makes sense. 👍

[trungles]

esteemed trungles, i come with an important question. What is the best romcom to watch in winter?

ESTEEMED omg incredible. I don't think I've ever been esteemed before, so I'll do my best to live up to it.

SO I'm a little late on this question for Holiday rom-coms, but it's still winter here right now, and I love rom-coms. In no particular order:

The Holiday (2006) - Kate Winslet! Jack Black! Cameron Diaz! Jude Law! John Krasinski for some reason (he shows up for like three minutes)! Kathryn Hahn (also in the same scene as John Krasinski)! Also there's a little, itty-bitty A Knight's Tale reunion because Rufus Sewell shows up and so does Shannyn Sossamon, which I find to be very sweet. Jack Black is cute as Christmas and hot as breakfast in this movie, and he somehow did this straightforwardly sweet rom-com AND Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny in the same year. The man has RANGE. You get two romances in this movie, and I think the Kate Winslet one is much more of a high-budget Silver Screen romance while the Cameron Diaz one is much more a Hallmark Channel romance, which I think is great because I love both kinds of romances.

When Harry Met Sally (1989) - This movie is iconic, and I love it to bits. I always have it saved to my phone so I can watch it on literally every plane ride just in case I get stressed out. Meg Ryan is incredible in it as a neurotic and incredibly self-assured woman who develops a friendship with Billy Crystal's character over the course of about a dozen years. Bruno Kirby and Carrie Fisher play some hilarious supporting characters. This movie is also lovely in that the most dramatic character arc belongs to the male love interest. Like, yes, Meg Ryan's character also grows, but there's no change to her world view or her wants and desires because she's not hurting anyone with the way she navigates those things, and Billy Crystal's character grows into someone you could imagine having lunch with, a far cry from when we first meet him. It's also very well-written. I downloaded the script just so I could pick it apart and learn from it.

Single All the Way (2021) - KATHY NAJIMY AND JENNIFER COOLIDGE ARE BOTH IN THIS MOVIE. I don't know what I was expecting, but this holiday rom-com charmed the thermal socks off me. Michael Urie and Philemon Chambers play best friends who fake a relationship so Michael's family will stop badgering him about there being no romance in his life. It's a fake dating movie, and it is also a delightful subversion of the Hallmark romance. Michael Urie escapes his big city life back to his small hometown where he meets an extremely hunky local spinning instructor (lol) played by Luke McFarlane, who is a literal mainstay of many actual, literal Hallmark romance movies. It's great. I enjoyed it immensely.

Moonstruck (1987) - Cher and Nicolas Cage star in this movie, and it's sort of difficult to describe. It's very funny, and it's heightened by how every single actor plays their character with the seriousness of a prestige drama. Olympia Dukakis and John Mahoney are also in this, and they're both delightful. I still occasionally yell, "I lost my hand! I lost my bride!!!" out loud at random intervals in the year. Keeps my loved ones on their toes.

While You Were Sleeping (1995) - This movie is a charmer and a half! Sandra Bullock stars as a lonely woman who works at the L in Chicago who falls in love with one of the passengers. One day, he falls victim to an attempted mugging and falls onto the tracks. Our heroine saves his life, but he winds up in a coma. A series of misunderstandings leads his entire family to believe that she's his fiancée, and polite shenanigans ensue (except in the case of one testicle-inspection, which might be regarded as pretty impolite, but it's very sweet in context). I also find Bill Pullman extremely blandsome and regular-looking to the point of being sincerely erotic. I don't know how this happened.

And I think that covers my wintry rom-coms! I watch all of them year-round, but these ones all vaguely take place in the winter-time and sometimes have a little bit to do with the holidays season.

[familyabolisher]

sorry if you've already already answered this, but do you mind explaining your thoughts on anti-intellectualism (/the discourse surrounding it)? I'm trying to understand it but while I get how what is defined as intellectual is very selective etc, I took a lot of the discourse to be about how folks tend to ignore themes entirely for the literal, or not noticing obvious subtexual racism/propaganda and going 'it's not that deep' when folks point it out, the like.

maybe it's that I tend to hang around in sff circles bc stuff like that tends to proliferate there, and while I definitely think the mocking gets very over the top and cruel (+ ascribes a lot more importance to media than it has in reality) and I dislike the way folks seem to think it's a moral failure, from my perspective there is still things that are reasonable to criticise?

I'm genuinely asking this in good faith and trying to understand, sorry if there's something big/obvious I'm missing

i talked at length about my feelings on the discourse here; that post should cover most of what you're asking for, but to address your specific queries:

i understand what's meant by "[ignoring] themes entirely for the literal," but, to be blunt about it: i don't care! i have my way of engaging with what i like and you have yours, and if you're interested in my way then it's on me to keep the door open for you rather than sneering about how anyone who doesn't adhere to my preferred methodologies is beneath me. how we identify a reading that orients itself towards "themes" rather than the literal material of a text is already pretty incoherent and certainly not conclusive; many will argue that eg. writing fanfiction is fundamentally at odds with engaging with such 'themes,' but i don't see why that should be the case at all. my mantra for this kind of discourse is "worry about yourself"; discuss texts in the way you like to, and you'll probably encounter like-minded people who want to engage further, as well as interested parties who may not have thought about the approach you're taking before now but want to learn more. i think it's good to assume that we can't draw definitive conclusions about any one person's understanding of or approach to a text based on how we see them talk about it, and i think it's necessary to avoid making a character judgment based on a[n assumed] lack of xyz critical analysis skills.

& i talk about this in the linked post, but i think an appeal to an absence of 'intellectualism' wrt people refusing to engage with eg. racism in a text (or similar such bigotries) is obscurantist. it's not that people lack the intellectual capacity to engage with such criticisms and if they had these capabilities then they would be able to do so in a conscientious manner, else elite academic circles of literary studies would not invest significant time and effort in trivialising and dismissing readings of canonical works which speak frankly about their relationship to white supremacy. there are incredibly racist readings of texts which are wholly cohesive within the "intellectual" tradition of literary criticism; that tradition itself cannot be separated from the context of western imperialist hegemony from which it emerged, and nor can the critical practices which inform and perpetuate it. intellectualism alone has no explanatory power when talking about racist literature and racist readings of literature; it's a smokescreen behind which lie a handful of possible explanations that i touch on in the above post.

of course there are reasonable critiques to be made of which reading practices proliferate and which are sidelined, but "[anti]-intellectualism" is not an explanatory framework that i find actionable, because it is rooted in appeals to idealism rather than materialism.

[takaraphoenix]

What do you think about the changes to Luke’s confrontation with Percy ?

Got this ask, got really confused, realized the final episode was out, went to watch it, came back here.

So.

Mh.

As with the majority of the many changes this show made to the books, I have... mixed feelings on it.

Part of me loves this much more than the books - much - more. Because it made so much more sense. Luke, trying to recruit Percy instead of just... flat-out trying to murder him again.

And! That Percy was the one who figured it out, on his own. I love how clever this show makes Percy.

It was a really tense and interesting confrontation.

Now here's the part that made me dislike it. Because it made so much sense.

In the books, Percy not taking Luke's side made complete sense, because Luke just flat-out tries to murder him, for the second time, and he is screaming and throwing so much stuff out in such a frantic way that he does sound like he lost his mind. It's very easy to conclude "My guy, you're being brainwashed by Kronos".

But this Luke? And this Percy?

The Percy who literally spent the entire damn show MAKING Luke's points. The first half of this show, every single conversation between him and Annabeth was basically Percy reciting Luke's bulletpoint list of why the gods suck and demigods shouldn't do their bidding.

And now, what? All of the sudden, just because, what, daddy dearest showed up once and saved Percy's life from Zeus, he is Team Olympus? C'mon. That was weak as fuck.

A very brief summary of a point I've made in the past, I don't want to drag this argument out again but it's important to bring up in this context: PJO is inherently a story about keeping the status quo. It follows the very tried concept of giving the villain (Luke) a very good and valid motivation to rebel against an oppressive force, but undermining the good points he makes by adding something that nobody can argue is bad (Kronos controlling everything in the background), so the hero fights the immediate problem instead of the shared oppressors, instead of just giving the very good and valid motivation to the hero and have them fight for real change.

And in the books, at least there really wasn't much of a reason for Percy to join Luke, and Luke doesn't even really ask for it either.

But this Luke asked. This Luke very coherently expressed himself.

And this Percy has made his exact talking points in the past. And nothing, aside from Poseidon stepping up once in his fucking life, has really changed. If anything, I'd say the bad - Ares, Zeus, ATHENA - really outweigh the good.

Why is Kronos worse than Zeus? Because he ate his children? Zeus did worse things to his own children in mythology, to be quite frank. Show Percy is too clever - too knowledgeable about mythology and the past of their godly family and good at putting one and one together - and too bitter toward the gods to so fully dismiss Luke, in my opinion, especially considering we removed the "I will immediately try to murder you with a killer scorpion" and added Luke explicitly trying to recruit Percy.

And I'm not saying "Percy should have absolutely joined Luke's side", but I am saying that it felt far too much like a 180 on Percy's part to be defending the gods and pretend that Luke isn't making sense. I liked that Chiron called that out in the end, but... Percy's reply was even weaker because there was no foundation for why he would be so stubborn about this.

Even if you don't pull through with it, I think that an angle of doubt, an angle of temptation, should have been played up here.