#counter-example

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

You know, it's kinda funny how much of high fantasy centers around kings and nobility and courtly intrigue considering that the archetypal high fantasy, Lord of the Rings, had the rather explicit moral of "saving the world is up to this backwater hick and his gardener because no politician, least of all inherited nobility, would have the ability to see past their own ambition and throw away a weapon". Oh sure, Aragorn is a great king and all, but there's a reason he's over there running a distraction ring while the hobbits do the real work. Sauron loses because he gets distracted by kings and armies and great battles (i.e. typical high fantasy stuff) letting Frodo and Sam sneak through his back door and blow it all to hell.

Just saying, maybe old Jirt knew what he was saying when he said that the small folk doing their best and holding to each other was more powerful than a dozen alliances and superweapons and we should respect him for it.

[anghraine]

I know I've ranted about it a million times, but every time someone brings up Roman, Byzantine, and Egyptian inspirations/influences on Gondor in more mainstream Tolkien fandom spaces (not me, because I don't even talk about it off Tumblr/DW), it seems like there's always someone who gets super weird and defensive about it. I've seen so many "well actually there's no need to consider any influences outside of England, mythology for England blah blah" responses.

And it's like! Oh, you want to play the decontextualized Tolkien quotes game? How about this one:

“But this [the setting of LOTR] is not a purely 'Nordic' area in any sense. If Hobbiton and Rivendell are taken (as intended) to be at about the latitude of Oxford, then Minas Tirith, 600 miles south, is at about the latitude of Florence [in Italy]. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient [Gondorian] city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy [in Turkey]. Auden has asserted that for me 'the North is a sacred direction.' That is not true. The North-west part of Europe, where I (and most of my ancestors) have lived, has my affection, as a man’s home should. I love its atmosphere, and know more of its histories and languages than I do of other parts; but it is not ‘sacred’, nor does it exhaust my affections. I have, for instance, a particular love for the Latin language, and among its descendants for Spanish ... The progress of the tale ends in what is far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome than anything that would be devised by a 'Nordic.'”

Or this one:

we come [in ROTK] to the half-ruinous Byzantine City of Minas Tirith

Or:

In the south Gondor rises to a peak of power, almost reflecting Númenor, and then fades slowly to decayed Middle Age, a kind of proud, venerable, but increasingly impotent Byzantium.

Or:

The Númenóreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms. In many ways they resembled ‘Egyptians’ - the love of, and power to construct, the gigantic and massive. And in their great interest in ancestry and in tombs. […] I think the crown of Gondor (the S. Kingdom) was very tall, like that of Egypt, but with wings attached, not set straight back but at an angle. The N. Kingdom had only a diadem (III 323). Cf. the difference between the N. and S. kingdoms of Egypt.

Or:

Thank you very much for your letter. … It came while I was away, in Gondor (sc. Venice), as a change from the North Kingdom

Middle-earth is not equivalent to England, or northern Europe in general, and Gondor especially is not northern at all!

[e-b-reads]

OK this is an excuse for me to be a little pretentious/pedantic, but I figured others might also want the opportunity to be a little pretentious/pedantic, so I'm making a poll out of it!

My pretension: I like reading (duh!), and I'm OK with a little inaccuracy for the sake of artistry. I mean, there are definitely authors who never bother to google basic terminology in a field, or try to write convincing history (or fantasy) without actually knowing much history...but if an author I otherwise like gets a little detail wrong about some specialist thing, I'm not likely to even notice. Except! If the thing is about boats/sailing. Examples below, but first, the poll:

I'm sure there's some technical mistakes (especially related to boats I'm less used to, like tall ships) that still slip by me. But I've had a couple times recently (different books/authors) where I was reading and enjoying myself and was suddenly twitched out of the story by an inaccuracy. One book where someone was asked to secure the boom after a tack (on a nice 45-ft modern sloop) which already doesn't make a ton of sense, and then she moved to a strange place in the boat to apparently do this. Another where the author twice mixed up jibing and tacking in dialogue (on the lines of "Don't sail to close to the wind or you'll jibe!" At least once the speaker was supposed to be an expert sailor).

Anyway, I still enjoyed the books overall, but I noticed both times I literally had to stop reading a think for a second, like wait, was I imagining it wrong? No, it's the author's fault! So now I'm telling you all about it.

[corviiids]

i think L should've tried harder to piss light off. provoking light into slipping up would not only be hilarious i also think it would be extremely easy and effective. not saying you could get light to actually confess this way, but he would definitely make more dumb mistakes if, for example, L kept interrupting their homoerotic brain chess matches to insist that kira is actually matsuda because the butts match

[bennetsbonnet]

Much has been made of Mr Darcy's "confession" to Elizabeth that he does not converse easily with strangers. It is repeatedly used to support neurodivergent interpretations of his character. And I suppose that when taken at face value, a character confessing that they do not easily converse with strangers and struggle to catch their tone or appear interested in conversation can absolutely scream AUTISM! (I say as an autistic person myself)

But this line is often taken in isolation. When considered in terms of the passage in which it appears in Chapter 31, it appears far less of a smoking gun than may initially be suspected. After some discussion about Elizabeth and Darcy's prior acquaintance in Hertfordshire, Colonel Fitzwilliam asks Elizabeth for information about Darcy's behaviour there. She readily supplies it:

'Pray let me hear what you have to accuse him of,' cried Colonel Fitzwilliam. 'I should like to know how he behaves among strangers.' 'You shall hear then—but prepare yourself for something very dreadful. The first time of my ever seeing him in Hertfordshire, you must know, was at a ball—and at this ball, what do you think he did? He danced only four dances, though gentlemen were scarce; and, to my certain knowledge, more than one young lady was sitting down in want of a partner. Mr Darcy, you cannot deny the fact.' 'I had not at that time the honour of knowing any lady in the assembly beyond my own party.'

What Darcy leaves out here is that it was he himself who chose not to be introduced to anybody. As we learn from the description of his behaviour at the Meryton assembly in Chapter 3:

Mr Darcy danced only once with Mrs Hurst and once with Miss Bingley, declined being introduced to any other lady, and spent the rest of the evening in walking about the room, speaking occasionally to one of his own party.

Anyway, Elizabeth correctly does not buy his excuses. Not only does she respond with a cutting sarcastic remark, but she tries to bring the discussion with an end by speaking to Colonel Fitzwilliam:

'True; and nobody can ever be introduced in a ball-room. Well, Colonel Fitzwilliam, what do I play next? My fingers wait your orders.'

But Darcy does not get the hint and continues conversing with Elizabeth rather than quitting while he's ahead. However, I don't believe him to be missing a social cue here. Rather, this is an exceedingly conceited man who cannot conceive that anyone would not want to speak to such a Superior Being as he and more-so, is determined to defend himself from a perceived slight against his impeccable character.

Then we come to the passage containing the oft-cited line which allegedly contains proof of his neurodivergency:

'Perhaps,' said Darcy, 'I should have judged better, had I sought an introduction; but I am ill-qualified to recommend myself to strangers.' 'Shall we ask your cousin the reason of this?' said Elizabeth, still addressing Colonel Fitzwilliam. 'Shall we ask him why a man of sense and education, and who has lived in the world, is ill-qualified to recommend himself to strangers?' 'I can answer your question,' said Fitzwilliam, 'without applying to him. It is because he will not give himself the trouble.'

Once again, Elizabeth does not buy his excuse for even a single second. She's fully aware of all the advantages a man such as he will have received in society (opportunities not open to women, might I add!) and draws attention to that fact. It's a brilliant, cutting line from her and she really set that one up for Colonel Fitzwilliam to deliver the knockout blow.

Not only do we have the testimony of Mr Darcy's cousin, that 'he will not give himself the trouble,' to appear cordial to strangers, but we have evidence from Wickham too. Although after this statement, Wickham quickly goes onto misrepresent Darcy's kindness to the poor, which contradicts Mrs Reynold's later testimony, I do believe Wickham to be telling the truth (for once!) here, when he tells Elizabeth in Chapter 16:

'Mr Darcy can please where he chooses. He does not want abilities. He can be a conversible companion if he thinks it worth his while.'

Which, again, demonstrates that Darcy is capable when he wants to be. That is the crucial point. Autistic people fundamentally lack the ability to understand social cues, they cannot turn it on and off as they please because they are snobs.

So, now we come to the infamous line about Darcy's supposed social struggles, and I hope that I've provided enough context to the line to make you see that it should not be taken at face value:

'I certainly have not the talent which some people possess,' said Darcy, 'of conversing easily with those I have never seen before. I cannot catch their tone of conversation, or appear interested in their concerns, as I often see done.' 'My fingers,' said Elizabeth, 'do not move over this instrument in the masterly manner which I see so many women’s do. They have not the same force or rapidity, and do not produce the same expression. But then I have always supposed it to be my own fault—because I will not take the trouble of practising. It is not that I do not believe my fingers as capable as any other woman’s of superior execution.'

Again, Elizabeth is not buying his excuses for even a single second and tells him if he feels like that, maybe he should put the effort in. She has seen him in numerous social settings and been thoroughly unimpressed with his behaviour which, when you consider his rudeness to her at the Meryton assembly, she has every right to be.

So, what do I make of the line?

Well, I think it's abundantly clear that Darcy absolutely can speak to people when he wants to. Perhaps, in his mind, he struggles to make that deeper connection and make friends easily. But making friends is not always easy, it's a process you must invest time and effort into. If you do not do that, it stands to reason that you will struggle. Plus, if you hold others to ridiculous standards (as Darcy does) without recognising and fixing the flaws within yourself, you're not going to have deep, lasting friendships.

While this quote may appear to be a moment of vulnerability where he does confess a fault of his, which is astounding given his pride, personally I do not think it was not a soul-searching exercise. It was to make Elizabeth stop grilling him. It was self-serving. Although, I don't think he's entirely lying. Darcy is veeeery careful with his words and though this statement is not considered and perhaps comes out rather abruptly, it doesn't necessarily follow that it isn't true. I can imagine that it is probably something he's felt for a while, yet it is a rather desperate attempt to defend himself from a woman who sees right through him.

I think perhaps Darcy does realise that he isn't as naturally gifted as other men he knows (such as Wickham, Colonel Fitzwilliam and Mr Bingley) when it comes to forming acquaintances. However, he looks outwards and turns that bitterness against the world rather than looking inwards, reflecting upon himself and improving his manners which would be the correct thing to do. Thankfully, he later does this, but it took him twenty eight years...

In addition, Darcy appeared to have been under the illusion that he could coast by on Pemberley's reputation... which has always worked... until he met Elizabeth. For perhaps the first time, he encounters a woman who is not awestruck by him and his reputation and delivers the rebuke that he always needed.

So, while personally I'm inclined to believe there is some truth to his statement, as Mr Darcy is many things but he isn't a liar, I think it is said in desperation. His feeling stems from him knowing what he should do, but he can't be bothered to enact it... rather than any inherent social deficiency stemming from being neurodivergent.

Although, even if he does struggle socially, it's still no excuse for the rudeness he displayed to Elizabeth! My main issue with neurodivergent readings of Darcy is when they are deployed to defend his behaviour, when they attribute his rudeness to any potential neurodivergency and when they excuse his laziness. That is an awful message! Autistic people who struggle with social cues often do not, nor should they, go around insulting others. They should and often do put plenty of effort into being considerate and polite. In fact, I think, if anything, a love of rules makes us more likely to have good manners, rather than the reverse.

Ultimately, I'm not sure this line makes Mr Darcy the sympathetic-poor-sweet-innocent-shy-boy-autistic-representation that people want him to be. In fact it makes him look even worse, if anything. On matters such as these, he is every inch the conceited proud man he was widely believed to be at the Meryton assembly. Luckily, Elizabeth is an incredibly smart woman, who doesn't fall for it and immediately calls him out on his behaviour in a way that he has never experienced before. As she should!

[psychotrenny]

While "Leftism" is a useful enough shorthand to describe a general tendency within a specific political context, it means absolutely nothing on it's own. Like you can use it when you want to quickly and broadly place something as "progressive", advocating more rapid and radical social changes in order to progress society away from its current set of contradictions. This has meaning when you can contrast it with "rightists", who could (depending on the specific context) seek more incremental change, preservation of the status quo or a retreat to a more entrenched version of it.

There are a number of ways in which one could employ these terms too. Like you could use it to describe those who exhibit these tendencies within a broader group or organisation, such as calling Bernie Sanders part of the "left wing" of the contemporary US DP while Leon Trotsky was a "leftist" within the CPSU of the mid 1920s. It could also describe individuals or organisations within a broader milieu (such as a nation's political scene); Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti are both broadly "leftist" thinkers of the 21st century USA while the GPUS and PSL are both "leftist" parties within the same context.

As you can see from these wildly varying examples, terms like "leftists" are inherently vague and not always useful. A lot of examples of what people call "leftist infighting" are groups with inherently irreconcilable ideologies that just happen to fall, under current conditions, within the same broad political tendency; it makes no sense to talk as though that sort of "left unity" is inherently desirable or even possible. And "Leftism" certainly isn't an ideology in of itself, but merely a way of classifying them. Your ideology can make you a "Leftist", but "Leftism" cannot be your ideology.

[my-autism-adhd-blog]

Examples of Gaslighting

First Things First

[sergle]

the idea of dogs needing a Firm Hand to learn (aka mild to medium animal mistreatment) is so funny to me, because Hugo had his feelings MORTALLY WOUNDED while being taught to Play Dead because I gently pushed him into a laying-on-his-side position... heartbroken from being gently pushed

[tremendouskoalachild]

Chewbacca didn't spend a trilogy running around wearing just a bandolier for y'all to call Qimir skinny dipping the first nude scene in star wars

[all-our-turf]

🎀+ all of the warriors for the hc prompts?

[ 🎀 ]ㅤ.ㅤwhat is their main love language ?

cochise: i think quality time, she just likes being present with the people she cares about, regardless of what they're doing. she's versatile yknow.

cowgirl: physical touch. she's constantly linking arms with someone when walking or grabbing onto someone when she's excited and leaning on the others on the couch or fidgeting mindlessly with someone's fingers or hair. i feel like cowgirl is very physical even in small gestures.

fox: i have zero evidence for this but i want to say gift giving. like i think fox constantly finds random trinkets and such that she loves giving to the others. she’s scarily good at stealing from stores or talking a stranger into getting her something or convincing a cashier to lower a price (all of which partly inspired her name) and so she’s constantly collecting things to give to the others. and they’re always for specific reasons or reminded her of a specific person.

cleon: i'm thinking words of affirmation but like. in subtle ways. she always makes sure her warriors know that they've done good. she knows she asks a lot from them and its important to her that they know how valuable they all are to the gang.

ajax: acts of service for sureeee. ajax is most comfortable expressing herself through action and will go to unimaginable lengths for the people she loves.

rembrandt: i'm also thinking quality time for her. rembrandt just loves existing in the same space as the people she cares about - she likes to watch them and hear their voices and idly sketch while her favorite people are around her.

swan: also acts of service. she's similar to ajax in the way she protects and cares for the people she loves.

mercy: definitely physical touch, we've all seen the photoshoot content right?

send a character + hc prompt from this list

[neversetyoufree]

God it just hit me.

Names are power in VnC. We call the piece of the world formula that defines a vampire their "true name." Learning and altering a vampire's true name gives you near-absolute power over them. Vanitas hides his old name as part of his "Vanitas" persona—a defense mechanism to hide his vulnerable self.

And names are an axis of discrimination too. The main way we've been examining discrimination against the dhampirs is through the lens of vampires refusing to call them by their names. And Luna, the perennial outsider, seems not to have been given a real name. They certainly didn't have a name that they liked or identified with for most of their life.

So with all that context, even more than it might be in another series, Teacher's whole name shtick becomes such an insane power move. He changes his name constantly and will brutally punish anyone that gets it wrong. Nobody has the power that would come from knowing whatever his first/true name was. He has the physical and social power to punish and correct anyone that doesn't call him what he wants to be called. He is in complete control of how people address him, or at least close to complete control, which is such a big deal within this story.

[allovesthings]

"Devin Grayson's Nightwing had a lot of well-documented problematic elements and weird writing all over the place" and "The way the fandom attacked her when male writers were doing the same thing or worse is misogynistic" are two statements that should co-exist.

Wolfman is out there doing the exact same thing she did with Tarantula twice and he gets called the best writer for Dick.

Nixon is out there making Dick a cop and is the reason why people think Dick is a player, and also have a lot of women kissing him without his consent including Catwoman and he is sexist towards the women in the comics and his Nightwing solo is acclaimed as one of the best solo run.

Tom Taylor is destroying Dick Grayson as we speak and some people are still praising him for it.

Morrison is out there, also doing the same thing with Talia and Bruce during Dick as batman and they are still called one of the best Batman run ?

Some of her runs are pretty good actually. She writes a great Roy (his mini-series is genuinely great) and she understands the dynamic of the Titans. She was part of the Bruce Wayne murderer/fugitive which is a very solid Batman/batfamily run and she also wrote Gotham Knight which had some similar elements to her Nightwing run when Dick was present but it's pretty good..

[beneathsilverstars]

not to comment on the current polyam discourses but i dated a married couple and i was their baby's third parent from the age of 3 months onward. and when that couple broke up when the baby was 1.5 yrs old (which had nothing to do with me), it would have been a hundred times messier and more difficult if i hadn't been there supporting my now-wife and our kid while our ex fucked off to sort herself out for a year. a couple years later a new partner joined our side of the family and we are happier and more stable than ever as a triad and our kid gets to have four parents who love her.

more people in a family is more opportunities for drama. and it's more opportunities for peace, stability, support, and love!!!

[quietbluejay]

Anti-Consequentialism in Warhammer 40k 1/5

So what is anti-consequentialism anyways?

Well, anti-consequentialism is when you disagree with consequentialism! there! simple! :p

Okay, I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of philosophy here so I'm going to be using terms in an inexact way, please don't come after me.

It probably would have been more accurate to title this "against the idea of necessary evils/the ends justify the means" but anti-consequentialism is snappier, and it's close enough for government work.

Because consequentialism is, in essence, that the morality of an act is defined by its consequences. Anti-consequentialism is really the umbrella term for the ethical theories that go "yeah no that's wrong" (deontology and virtue ethics being the main ones, if you were curious)

I'll let Optimus Prime take it away and tldr for you:

you see what I mean?

[sothasil]

Any ideas on lgbt (mostly gay stuff) in khajiiti culture?

Canon sources of LGBT khajiit are rare from what I know of, encountered some gay NPCs when I was playing ESO which was never commented upon (this was before the Elsweyr expansion which I haven't played), and years ago, sex jokes from Daggerfall were often brought up as crumbs of representation but I believe they're less lore-y and more fantasy flavor takes on basic jokes. Gender is very important to the notions of what makes LGBT- khajiit culture, judging by the creation myth in Words of Clan Mother Ahnissi as well as by the honorifics they use in their naming conventions, seem to go for a male/female binary. There are no transgender or gender non-conforming khajiit mentioned that I know of, although I cannot name any culturally relevant sexism either, so it's fair to assume it's not much of a thing. Historically, the real life cultures I've read about that strictly see gender as male or female seem to inch for both sides of the same coin approaches, or seeing them as two separate things, and given khajiit motives of duality and seeing outside of it I would assume it's the first. I also believe people outside that strict biological binary have and will always exist, although in video games representation it is not fair to read much into their absence because those people are rarely if ever represented in mainstream media.

This being out of the way, here's the headcanons portion! I'll be referring to khajiit and elsweyri culture interchangeably (a can of worms for another day)

My main idea would be that khajiit are very lax about sex, do not consider it a taboo topic and in their culture, have a lot of freedom around it. Ostracizing someone for homosexual relationships would be considered an attack. The times it could be a big deal would be surrounding situations where someone wants biological children, should it be of their own desire or because of peer pressure, which would be niche situations more depending on individuals than culture as a whole. However, I also believe that in using our modern terms, the social norm would be bisexuality and that someone displaying exclusive preference should it be gay or het might raise a few eyebrows. Given this, I do not believe that the born and raised elsweyri have specific gay subcultures as is the case in our modern world. Same sex marriages would also happen (more in my marriage post).

Regarding transgender people, with the strong binary I mentioned above I think gender non-conformity and transgender identities would be understood closely to our modern world. It'd be easier to understand to a khajiit that someone would transition from male to female and the other way around, but more complex personal expressions of gender would be outsides of the social norm and broadly characterized as "third other" or by less gentle people, as a combination of traits of each, the basic "x soul y body" or whatnot phrases you sometimes hear. This could be both rejected and reclaimed by people! And contrary to gay stuff, it's likely that GNC individuals would group up to find in each other respite from the social norm.

But if you're to ask LBGT questions to a khajiit the most likely answer would be in the lines of "why is this your business?", or adjacent 😺

[maldupay]

people are of course free to feel how they want about things regarding isat and what parts of the story/characters/gameplay etc they like and dislike.. Hell i sure have things i dislike along with all my love for the game. but i feel like a lot of the grievances i've seen about the artbook are just taking something that's clearly a joke too seriously, in an extra content book that's just meant to show some behind the scenes and creators thoughts. Like komaeda's in this book ok lets chill out