#externally i'm good at like

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

anyone else have multiple traumatic memories associated specifically with holidays/family vacations? because that is a topic I never see discussed in all the So You Had A Shitty Childhood, Now What? self-help books i've been reading. but for me, it was a significant thing. and the more i think about it the more it seems like this would be an (unfortunately) common experience. would be grateful to hear if this matches other peoples' experiences...

[sysig]

Blind side (Patreon)

[kate-apologist]

hey disney what the fuck do you mean ncuti's second season will also only have 8 episodes and a christmas special i'm holding a fucking gun to your head

[zxal]

I will always be loyal to Yuya.

[captainofthetidesbreath]

[blows a kiss out to sea] for the Mighty Nein pirates arc

[logicpng]

I think I can with certainty say I'm past the halfway point with this. there's not that much random dialogue left to make up

I can only hope the switch works as intended on other computers, since a different timing left them mid-transition. it seems like it doesn't interrupt the bubbles switch but it's only if the menu switch/shell reset comes at a specific point before it 🤔

sakurascript is really weird with calling functions, but I Think if you call it as a variable ( %(function) ) it doesn't interrupt the script?? maybe??

[Image ID:

Two gifs showing off Vega complaining about the messiness of Windows' system32 folder, providing the user with a link to open it and see for themselves, and the right click context menu changing its color scheme alongside Vega switching to Rigel.

End ID]

[mayasaura]

When it comes to John, I have zero interest in condemning him. First of all, it's boring. You mean destroying the world and lying to your friends about it is bad? Shocking. Groundbreaking character work.

Second of all, I'm just not all that comfortable with condemnation in general, not when it comes to whole-ass people. Actions, for sure. I am ready to wholeheartedly condemn pretty much every decision this man has ever made, but I'm only comfortable doing that with a side of compassion for the man himself. Tamsyn said once in an interview that some of the discussion she's seen about Harrow is unintentionally very cruel to people with mental illnesses, and I feel similarly seeing a lot of the discussion around John. If I'm going to try to figure out where he's coming from, why he did the things he did, and what he thought he was accomplishing by doing them, I'm not at all interested in coming at those questions with contempt or disgust.

To me, the main question when it comes to John is: What do you do when you feel that you're unforgivable? That you've fucked up so completely no one will ever love you again, unless you lie and trick them into it? How do you deal with shame? And while part of the answer is definitely "Holy shit, not like that," what I'm most interested in is: what should he have done instead? At what points in his narrative could he have changed his course? And at what point, if ever, did he become right about it being impossible for him to dial it back and turn around?

[thedorkdionysia]

I have many issues with chibnall era doctor who (and these are long and varied and would probably take more than just one post to discuss and better people than me have already made those posts) but if there is one thing that I am currently really angry about, it is the fact that for the first time in 55 years we saw the doctor played by an actor of a different gender and we got to see this transformation play out on screen, and knowing how each doctor kind of goes through an arc of figuring out their new identity in their new body, this COULD have been a fantastic allegory for being trans and what that means to others about the person you were before transitioning vs. the person you are now, and for maybe one scene in 13's first episode it kinda felt like we would get an exploration into that character arc this season.

but then all that we really get from the rest of that season and the next two that chibnall wrote is a bunch of funny gags where the doctor gets her own gender and pronouns confused and experiences misogyny because she's a Woman now and we never really get any deeper than just jokes about how the doctor is now externally presenting as a woman with no real commentary about how it affects her own internal feelings

[commsroom]

eiffel's problem is that he sees every injustice as an interpersonal issue. he doesn't understand how his flippancy or apparent leniency towards hilbert might look to hera; in his mind, it doesn't contradict his support for her. to eiffel, it seems obvious - he is also one of hilbert's victims, hera is his friend, of course he's completely on her side - but he fails to fully grasp how the stakes are different for her.

ep 19: "you need to stop treating this like a joke, officer eiffel." / "hey, i'm the person for whom the joke tolls." / "i get you're scared he put something inside you. but i hope you haven't forgotten emergency code alpha victor. he put that in me." and ep 51: "they're just jokes! they don't really mean anything." / "see, eiffel, you get to have that. they can be 'just jokes' for you because you're... well, you. but we don't get that."

the issue in shut up and listen is eiffel's repeated, if unintentional, microaggressions, but it's also his general use of dark humor as a coping mechanism - jokes he feels justified in making because of how the subjects of those jokes have impacted him. eiffel sincerely believes in treating people equally, but his idea of 'equal treatment' can be idealistic and naive. he has an awareness of interpersonal harm, but he's lived most of his life without ever being confronted with the reality of structural harm - being pre-judged and othered and having his life devalued on the basis of outside categorization.

but the thing about that is that it has happened to him, too. eiffel is an addict, and a convict, and marked as from a lower socioeconomic class than minkowski or lovelace, and those things are the reasons goddard futuristics was able to buy him as prison labor and - without his consent - consider him expendable for medical experimentation. none of that is a coincidence, but he doesn't see the systems at work, only his own actions and regrets. which he then equivocates to the worst actions of people who don't share his sense of morality or guilt.

eiffel's ability to recognize and bring out the humanity in the people around him is one of his best qualities, but... on the basis of his identity, he's been able to live a life where he conceptualizes himself as the default person, and that's been reinforced by the pop culture he loves so much. that's a massive blind spot. he assumes everyone navigates the world in a similar way, and so, on some level, he sees everyone around him as an extension of or a reflection of himself. if evil is always personal, then it can always be reasoned with.

[sysig]

Red Eyes and Evil Time, practically the same thing right (Patreon)

[ragsy]

i'm making good choices today

[t-u-i-t-c]

yippee we're watching kabuto at the same time 🥳 are you watching the 1080p version perhaps

Yay! I'm watching 720p bc I do not have space for the 1080p rn but I'll get the 1080p someday.

[vimbry]

I need to be a person who's normal about e-mails. whenever I'm in an even slightly formal correspondence and get a reply, I start visibly blushing w/ tremendous fear and anxiety, like I'm a character being shipped in a fanfic.

I think it just ties into some like, juvenile impostor syndrome feeling. like I might as well be sitting at my computer in a suit and tie w/ a baby's head like in that rugrats episode, talking to some real office bigwigs, when realistically they're probably typing these bored out of their mind reclining w/ their iphone.

[lesbienneanarchiste]

That last poll reminded me of this screenshot I took the other day:

I mean, granted, ive been playing this game for many years but I hit a couple thousand levels and then my account glitched and I had to start over so really Ive technically played 13,000+ levels of gardenscapes 🧍

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Hello.

You and gay-jesus-probably have successfully made me question everything with your view that Tears of the Kingdom is imperialist propaganda, so that's been fun.

Anyway, I decided to share this discussion with the Zelda fans on reddit, and perhaps unsurprisingly, a lot of them disagreed. Here is what they said (I'm Alarming_Afternoon44):

So what do you think? Have I and all these other people just been duped by the game's manipulative framing? Or do they actually have a point?

And if you'd rather not answer this, or would prefer if I censored the usernames, just tell me and I'll delete this.

Hey! Thanks a lot for reaching out, and I'm glad it made you think stuff through!!

Honestly, as I mentioned in this post, I am not super interested about in-world conversations about who oppresses who, because what can be assessed from the game is super vague and more vibes-based than evidence-based. Within the text, of course that the Good Zonais are good and the Bad Ganondorf is bad! But that's my whole point! The narrative has been deliberately crafted so that the zonais and Rauru (and Hyrule) are as blameless as possible (and it's not doing a great job at it overall to be frank; we would not be having these conversations about how offputting it all feels for a non-zero number of people if it did do a great job). More importantly, I want to focus on what sort of real-life narrative it all parallels. Because people make stories, and people live in the real world.

Not going after everyone's throat here, gamedev is hard and the hydras that are AAA game production do end up doing super weird stuff, especially since the thematic ramifications are absolutely never prioritized (and it's also always the same kind of people who make the final calls and push out what can and can't be talked about also). And as fans, we tend to have trouble stepping outside the lens of lore and take a look at the bigger picture sometimes; not as an attack on any individual part of that decision-making process but to just pause, stop, and question our standards, our priorities and the kind of reality (or skewing of reality) the stories we tell each other reflect.

Again: do we want to take videogames seriously or not? If we do, then we need to accept they are a vehicle for ideology, just like any other artform. And sometimes, you push out questionable ideology, sometimes without meaning to, because you didn't unpack your own biases as you did. And it's even fine to do it, nobody is perfect, a 300+ people team spread over 6 years certainly will not be that. But that it wasn't prioritized is, in my opinion, a problem. As a narrative designer, I want games (at least the narrative side) to be held to a higher standard than this. It's literally my job to work with the industry so it can hold itself to higher standards of quality --so the whole TotK situation is quite frustrating to witness from a very pragmatic, work perspective where I already spend my days trying to convince people that things mean things. I have a vested interest here in not having the companies I work for being given a free pass by gamers to do literally whatever as long as it's fun, especially when we're talking about a billion-dollars company suing its own fans left and right for any perceived slight. Nintendo are not underdogs here. It's fine to point out they cut corners and maybe promoted messy ideologies, voluntarily or not.

So long story short: no I don't believe anyone here has a point in regards to what I think is actually important, which is why these choices were made in the first place. If you look at an imperialist text expecting the text to tell you that it's imperialist instead of recognizing a framing used for propaganda by yourself, you're never gonna find any imperialist text ever, obviously not!! I'm sorry if I sound a little gngngn here, but I don't know why audiences have, at large, this feeling that lore and story beat decisions materialize themselves already formed and without any human bias, meddling, intervention, internal politics or approximations (it seems that people can only conceptualize this part if they have actual names to attach to the story, but without clear authors it's like there are no authors and so no bias, which is... a very strange bias in itself). I can promise you that it does not work that way in practice: every narrative department on every big game is a battlefield --some nicer than others, but all of them very emotionally draining either way.

So yeah, I guess that on these grounds, I disagree with every point raised here. Sorry Reddit :/

But thank you for the ask and sorry if I didn't go more into details as to why. The big Why I Dislike Rauru Post and the Gerudo Post might have some more specific rebuttals, but I am not super interested in debating small detail stuff tbh. I feel like it's no use if the frame of reference isn't being understood in the first place.

[britneyshakespeare]

Man is saying weird things to me again