#i have so many thoughts all the time about the dichotomy between the internet as a platform and the internet as a corporate space

[saturnisfallingdown]

"–I fuckin' love you too. Look. There can be great things to share on [the internet]! Your art! Your friends! You might have met your best friend on the computernet! Just don't give those bastards everything! Keep some for yourself, and the people you love. You know, people uh, with the fuckin' crazy ass outfits and whatevers and fuckin'... People have been like 'He's crazy! He's– unhinged! He's come unglued!' ...That may be the case, but I am free now." (MCR @ Milton Keynes 2022, Night 2)

[lillified]

I remember you saying earlier (on twitter,not here) that the autobots were kind of boring,since they only fit into a few archetypes. I’ve kind of been thinking about that, and I thought they may also have been boring because of another thing: these few personality types means no one really bounces off eachother, and it doesn’t lead up to any interesting conflict.

This may only apply to G1,or I may just be talking nonsense, but compare them to the decepticons. The decepticons have a lot of different personalities , so they contrast against eachother and a lot of the times,disagree with eachother,creating conflict. However, with the autobots, the similar personality problem can come when no sort of conflict,even ones between certain characters,exists, and everyone has no sort of unique opinions towards eachother. And conflict,you know,makes up a lot for a story and characters.

A lot of people don’t care much about the autobot moments a lot, however you don’t really need to scour the internet to see videos and people posting about Megatron arguing with Starscream or skywarp getting clowned by rumble and frenzy, if you know what I mean.

hey!! wow, it is always surprising when people remember stuff I said lol

I’m admittedly just not really a big autobot fan (if I get the opportunity to write the autobots they’d be very messy) but I totally agree with you here—people seem to like the autobots, conceptually, for very different reasons than people like the Decepticons, and it factors into an interesting dichotomy between how different people view characters as a literary device.

while it isn’t a rule by any means, I’ve noticed there are a lot of people who love certain autobots, but specifically like them in isolation. the idea of the character is more important than anything they’ve actually done. pretty much every autobot that exists has a fan, but they could have little, if any, screen presence. this isn’t bad, of course! in many cases, it’s extremely novel and sweet. that being said, I’ve noticed that even the most prominent autobots have this happen—Optimus Prime is more of a symbol than a character, and that separation is a source of comfort.

This also happens with Decepticons, but I’d argue it’s to a lesser extent? They tend to have much more defined and consistent character relationships, arcs, and themes. The decepticons who are viewed in isolation most frequently would probably be Soundwave and Autobot Megatron, which is interesting (I am honestly not a fan of the modern characterizations of either of these, but I totally understand why people are!), in that their interactions, story purposes, and even personalities are flattened to separate them from the underlying narrative. People love the idea of Soundwave, but fail to give it a personality.

Once again, I don’t think any of this is bad! Moreover, isolating characters from the existing narrative and putting them in different places according to where they might better suit a story is a very good thing, actually. I’ve never agreed with the pushback for iterative/adaptive media altering existing characters’ traits or personalities to suit their thematic purpose, because I think it takes away the agency and undermines the vision of the artist. obviously you can dislike certain characterizations (I do that often) but blaming a deviation from the norm is extremely reductive. Trying to stick to an idealized checklist of how a character ought to act instead of recognizing them as a reactive, dynamic story device is how you end up with flat, unchanging characters and a boring story.

To tie that back to what I like about the decepticons, I think the fact that they are so messy is their strength—they aren’t all just different skins on the same archetype, they’re unique thematic elements which adapt and serve a function in the story. You can make them physically and even archetypally unrecognizable, but as long as you utilize them as elements in the story and afford them the conflict and complexity they deserve, it’s much more difficult to go wrong.

thanks for reading, and thank you for the question!! I hope this all makes sense—I wiped myself out last night and I’m still recovering, so I apologize if this was incoherent lol

[mbti-notes]

Anon wrote: Hello, 16yo girl here. I had been questioning what my MBTI type was between ENTP and INTP for quite a long time - I had known that Ti and Ne were always at the top of my stack, but not which one was stronger... until yesterday, when I reflected back on my sheltered upbringing and I came to the conclusion that I was an ENTP, just one with very marked introvert tendencies and possible developmental delays due to combination of a stifled dominant function and possibly autism.

That stifling of Ne is also probably why I have only become more reclusive as time went on - I spent most of my time as a child either at school, the same small private school I've been going to since 1st grade, or at home, mostly on my computer. While in the surface my time on the internet allowed me to have easy access to novelty, it is still doing the same thing over and over again on a grander scale.

Meanwhile, I never managed to truly "fit in" at school, and after starting to make amends with my old friends at the end of sixth grade the pandemic happened, which pretty much meant that the only thing I'd be doing for two years was basically staring at screens all day. Once I returned back to school, I started feeling 'othered' again, and even as I found out it was partially over my own immaturity, I still feel like I will not actually become part of the group right now, that I should just grind it out until it ends, that college, due to the new environment and size will be the time I'll truly begin to shine - further proven by how excited I was when I went to one of the unis I was considering's open day recently.

Meanwhile, my ISTJ mother won't stop comparing me negatively to my brother and on how he was so similar to her in personality compared to me, always implying that I turned out "off" in some way or another, even if she's usually well-meaning.

Thoughts?

-----------------------

I don't guess at type. You've only speculated about one possible function, which is nowhere near enough info to draw any kind of sound conclusion. I generally won't comment on type assessment unless people follow the instructions on the contact page to submit a proper profile of themselves. In short, I won't have any "thoughts" if you don't give me enough to analyze.

You've basically described typical adolescent adjustment issues that anyone of any type can suffer. It is not uncommon for teens to have trouble fitting in. Why? Because they are still in the process of learning good social skills. When you're at the "beginner" level of learning anything, your ideas tend to be very primitive or crude. Thus, from the teenage perspective, socializing often boils down to the idea of "approval", which is taken to mean EITHER be like everyone else OR be an outsider.

Either/or thinking is a form of illogical thinking that creates a false dichotomy, essentially reducing your world to only two possibilities. You said that not being able to find your group right now, maybe it would be better to just leave it until college - once again, your world only has two possibilities. This kind of oversimplified thinking is normal in children and teens, but it is considered a sign of cognitive immaturity in adults (as their thinking hasn't evolved since adolescence). It's not something for you to be concerned about but, rather, something to be aware of and gradually improved upon.

When compared to full-formed adults, young people (<25) are limited in several ways:

They lack life experience, so they haven't had enough time to learn all the knowledge and skills they need to live life well.

They lack cognitive resources to understand complexity because the brain hasn't reached physical maturity yet.

They lack emotional resources to cope with difficulty because the brain is still feeling the effects of changes that began in puberty.

They might also lack confidence due to too many environmental factors being out of their control.

They might also lack direction due to not having access to enough learning resources they need for self-development.

They might also lack purpose due to not having enough access to positive role models, guides, or mentors to help them see the bigger picture of life.

I mention these things not to make teens feel shamed and ashamed for what they naturally lack, but to make them aware of where their potential lies. Your "weaknesses" are just as important for realizing your greater human potential as your "strengths". Weaknesses make plenty of room for learning, development, change, growth, evolution, and transformation... BUT this is assuming you know how to confront weaknesses in the right way. So, reflect: How have you responded to your weaknesses, as signaled through your mistakes and failures?

How do you respond to lack of life experience? Do you keep it that way by locking yourself away? Do you waste your time with trivial experiences? Do you seek out meaningful learning experiences?

How do you respond to lack of cognitive resources for understanding complexity? Do you just reduce everything into oversimplistic ideas? Do you avoid complex situations? Do you study them to grow your understanding? Do you get help for understanding them?

How do you respond to lack of emotional resources for handling difficulty? Do you numb yourself? Do you run or escape from negative feelings? Do you seek appropriate help and support? Do you set out to learn healthy coping skills and strategies?

How do you respond to lack of confidence? Do you shit-talk yourself more and more? Do you write off your future? Do you assert more independence? Do you take more control whenever possible? Do you improve your knowledge, skills, and capabilities?

How do you respond to lack of direction? Do you give up on yourself? Do you resign yourself to the status quo? Do you learn how to make better decisions for yourself? Do you learn how to set and achieve more fulfilling goals?

How do you respond to lack of purpose? Do you settle for less? Do you resign yourself to being small? Do you ignore existential pain? Do you seek answers? Do you set higher aspirations? Do you commit yourself to greater ideals?

Adjustment issues are very likely to get expressed through auxiliary development problems. Since you're unsure about your type, the most I can say is that healthy Ti encourages people to 1) analyze and learn from mistakes/failures, and 2) identify and acquire the knowledge/skills required to eventually succeed. If your response to failure is dismissal, evasion, withdrawal, or avoidance, it means you are choosing to get stuck at a low level of competency indefinitely.

If you are able to get past the beginner level in socializing, you'll start to realize the false dichotomy and how self-sabotaging it really is. Socializing is much more nuanced and complex than "insider vs outsider", and there are more options available than "conform vs rebel". This raises the question of what other options are available to you - it is a question for your Ne to answer.

Yes, it's true that you can't be friends with everyone. But you don't need to be friends with everyone, do you? You only need a handful of close friends who understand you in order to have a satisfying social life. They don't have to come from school or the usual places. They can come through other activities. They can come from all demographics or backgrounds.

Growing up in a small environment puts you in danger of thinking too small all the time. The key is you have to recognize that the world is a big place, so you have to start putting yourself out there to find the friends of best fit. The more people you meet, the more you increase your odds of success. Whether you try now or later isn't the right point to focus on. You're not going to find what you're looking for as long as: you don't actually get up to look, you have absolutely no system or plan for proceeding, and/or you don't have the skills to keep relationships even when you do find good people. You need real-life social experience if you want to improve your social skills. The sooner you get started, the better. It's unrealistic to think that you'll magically be great at relationships just because you started college.

I know options can be limited at your age but 16 is generally the age when teens really start to venture out into the world on their own (without parents/guardians). In many places, you can drive and work at 16. You can start exploring places you've never been to around town. You can join more extracurricular activities/clubs that would put you in contact with people beyond your school. I shouldn't have to tell an ENTP to go out and explore, as you should simply follow your natural Ne motivation. If that motivation is absolutely nowhere to be found, then perhaps reconsider your type.

[thefirsttree]

A personal update + my next game

OK, time to do this. I’ve been meaning to do a big DAVID WEHLE™ update for a while now and explain why I haven’t released a new game yet, but you know how life gets in the way. Especially when life is a quarantine hellscape, you have three beautiful, amazing, exhausting kids to raise, a spouse’s job you support, a viral YouTube channel that turns your brain to mush, a thousand emails waiting in your inbox since your game is free on the Epic Games Store (with an impressive number of redemptions too! … meaning lots of emails and customer support issues), etc., etc. What also contributes to my lack of updates is because… I just don’t really like posting online. Fascinating correlation, I know!

Don’t worry, this isn’t going to be a venting/ranting blog post (well, maybe a bit), because my life is seriously AMAZING and INSANELY BLESSED and LUCKY. I can’t believe how many dreams keep coming true, so much so that I feel I don’t deserve it and I really pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes… but I did want to at least be honest, because I owe that to myself.

Wow, where do I even begin? Well, how about we start with the reason I’m even a full-time indie game dev now: The First Tree. This small hobby project I worked on at night morphed into this gargantuan beast (or fox) that took over my life the past 5 years. Which is great! I’m living the dream! And yet, I really didn’t expect it to do as well as it did. At its core, my game is a slow-paced, sad walking simulator (ahem, I prefer the term “exploration game,” but you know what I mean) that somehow seemed to launch at the right time to the right audience. It resonated deeply with some of you, and for that I’m eternally grateful. I still get emails almost daily how my game changed their lives in some formative way. I’m beyond honored.

However, with that spotlight came criticism and demands from the ever-present, insatiable internet. I would randomly be surfing the gamedev subreddit trying to decompress, and I would see a comment by some rando saying how much I didn’t deserve my success, and how it was all one huge lucky fluke. And I believed them!

And to add to it, some devs considered me an indie marketing “guru”, which I was uncomfortable with. I worked hard to market my game every week, and after my GDC talk, people assumed marketing was my passion; the reason I got up every morning. Just to clarify… NO, I don’t like marketing, and I hate being the center of attention. I don’t like asking people for money and wishlists. But I did what was necessary because I was passionate about telling stories, and I wanted to give my story a fighting chance to be seen on the crowded pages of Steam.

So now, you’re probably wondering “well then David, why did you make fancy YouTube videos showing off your success? Not very modest if you ask me.” This honestly could be a long blog post all on its own, because my experience of putting myself in the spotlight and becoming a “content creator” is… complicated. It was an unusual step for me, especially since I never even showed my face online (as a game developer) until my GDC talk.

First off, I always wanted to teach and start a YouTube channel. I love video editing, especially since I’ve been doing it longer than making games! It’s a huge passion of mine. And teaching people who didn’t know they could make and finish games was a huge motivator (and it’s been so rewarding already). But the second reason is, I was scared. I was self-employed, and I was riding the success of a “huge lucky fluke” that would probably not happen again. I wanted to make sure I could provide for my amazing family, and give them food and health insurance and security in these tumultuous times. I was turning my lifelong passions and hobbies into a business, and it wasn’t as simple of a mental transition as I thought.

So, I went all in on YouTube and the accompanying online course called Game Dev Unlocked. I spent years editing the scripts and videos, and polishing them to a shine. At first, no one watched my videos, no one was buying… and in the blink of an eye, the YouTube algorithm picked up my main autobiographical video (“How Making Indie Games Changed My Life”), and I started getting 5,000 subscribers a day. Right now, I’m at 150,000 subs, which is still hard for me to believe. I always had a dream of earning 100k subs on YouTube, so I was pretty happy with the whole thing. Sales were OK, but mostly people didn’t want to buy the course. Then the emails came in…

Something you should know about me: I am a textbook “people pleaser,” and if someone asks for my help, I take it very seriously. If someone is mad at me, even if I didn’t do anything wrong, it’s all I can think about, and it ruins my day. So, taking an onslaught of people begging for help and multiplying that by an impossible amount of people for my brain to truly comprehend thanks to the internet… and let’s just say it wasn’t a healthy mix.

I received thousands of emails from people who were begging me for some kind of reassurance that everything would be OK. That their dreams would come true too. And I wanted to help every single one of them. I went from a nobody working on a game for fun to becoming a spokesperson for the indie game dream. I couldn’t even get a shake from the Chick-Fil-A drive-thru without someone recognizing me and asking for game dev advice. And it didn’t stop there… I would get emails from suicidal kids asking for help, teenagers from Afghanistan asking me to get them out of their country, and on one occasion I received an email from a hopeful game developer in a war-torn country who had just experienced a bomb blowing up their neighboring village. His friends were dead, and he was hoping he could finish a game before he died too, and he needed my help. How do you say no to something like that? Didn’t I owe it to everyone because I was lucky with my hit game and I needed to “pay it forward”? (Something people constantly reminded me of)

And then to top it off, after you’ve given everything you’ve got to other people in need… you get hate mail in your inbox. You spend the whole day serving your children and strangers on the internet, then when the kids are finally asleep, you hit the bed to relax and take a look at your phone to decompress, and you randomly come across an angry gamer in your Twitter mentions telling you your game they got for free sucks, and that you took away a potentially great game from them and that your apology isn’t good enough.

Long story short, I went to a mental therapist for the first time in my life. I was broken trying to care for two toddlers and a new baby in a pandemic (which is very, very hard), taking care of my course students who gave me their hard-earned money and demanded results, and the countless people begging for help on the internet. I was this introverted, internet-lurker trying to take on the weight of the world. I was so tired and hurt that no one cared about me and my needs… only what I could do for them.

Quitting my day job and making this hobby my full-time job has stirred up… mixed emotions. This statement may disturb some of you, but I was definitely 100% happier when I had a full-time job and I was working on my game at night. I missed working with the amazing team at The VOID, working on Star Wars… back when the success of my game was this abstract thing I could only daydream about. Mostly, I was making my game for me with no outside expectations to pay the bills or satisfy the ever-demanding internet, and that brought me a lot of joy.

It’s not all doom and gloom though! I’m actually very happy now and in the best shape I’ve been since the pandemic started. I’ve had to confront my weaknesses and personality quirks, but I’m a better person for it (and I’m sure these issues would’ve come out eventually). I hired an awesome community manager for Game Dev Unlocked who is helping SO MUCH with the emails, I can’t even tell you the mental burden it alleviates. I even leased a co-working office to help separate work from my home, and that’s been a huge help too. I’ve decided to work with my old friends from The VOID on a cool, new VR experience. It will take me away from my projects a bit, but I’m ecstatic to work with a great team again (and not manage anything, whew).

These are all things I would’ve never guessed I needed, because I thought I knew myself pretty well… turns out I didn’t.

The reality is: running a business is HARD. Running it solo is even harder. You have to remember, I was burnt out on The First Tree well into the Steam release in 2017, but I kept working on it for 4 more years due to my fears of failing again and not earning enough money for my family.

So, I was wrestling with the age-old concept of commercialism and art. There was this dichotomy of doing whatever I wanted and being true to my vision (what most people assume the indie dev dream is like), and doing only what customers wanted to buy. This is something that has killed me with YouTube… in one specific instance, I was super excited to make the exact video I wanted to make. I loved every part of its creation, and I thought it had a message that would inspire everyone. I lovingly edited it over several weeks, posted it, and excitedly waited for the stats… and it was by far my worst performing video.

This is not a new problem. Even the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo was a commission forced upon him by the very violent Pope Julius II. My wife and I regularly talk about the fine balance between artistic integrity and commercialism, a problem she is very familiar with as an artist who constantly needs to balance what she wants to make with what the customer wants to hang up in their home.

For The First Tree, I was lucky. It was pretty much what I wanted to make (I had to compromise a lot of things of course), and it turned out millions of people wanted it too. Recently, I thought the safe business decision would be to do it all over again, so I started work on a spiritual successor to The First Tree (an idea that I may revisit one day since I do love the story idea). But that isn’t happening anytime soon. Trust me when I say I am now currently burnt out on animal exploration games.

So that realization left me with a question: what do I do next?

I’ve decided I need to make a game that I want to make, for me. It will be a bit different and I’m almost certain most fans of The First Tree will not love it… but it’s an idea that gets me super excited. It’s an idea that could help me fall in love with game development again.

A few more details: this game will be story-driven, first-person, and will use the Unreal Engine. That means development is gonna be slow going, because I have to learn a whole new tool. The “smart business” decision would be to make something quickly in Unity which I’m already familiar with… but I want to do this for me, and UE5 looks like a lot of fun. I’m also shooting for an early-ish release date so I avoid burn out and I keep the game short: I want to release it in Fall 2022, but knowing game development, it will probably take longer.

With the help of my therapist, I’ve also concluded that I’ve been too accessible on the internet and that my self-worth isn’t determined by the amount of people I try to help online. Of course, I love helping people and seeing them succeed, but I need to step back and focus on my family and myself. I will delete my social media apps on my phone (I will still post big updates occasionally) and stop responding to most emails, tweets, DMs, etc. It’s not that I’m ungrateful… in fact, if I don’t say thank you or at least acknowledge the incredibly nice people who share a sweet message about my game or want to tell me how I inspire them (still hard for me to believe, lol), I feel a ton of guilt… but I need to let that go. Please know I’m extremely grateful to all the fans who follow my work, so even if I don’t thank you directly, I truly mean it: thank you.

I will still post and stream occasionally on YouTube when I want to (and I still do live Q&A’s for my GDU students). The online course sales will help support my family as I work on a potentially risky game idea (and my new job will help alleviate the risk too). I’m gonna try one more marketing experiment and sell a mini-course soon (and add an Unreal section), and after that I’m done working on it. A gigantic thank you to the people who bought my course and are part of the amazing community, it has helped me and my family tremendously, and it’s inspiring seeing the games you make!

I’m a bit worried about the whole thing since this new game idea could flop, which could definitely affect my family. But a sappy, high-school yearbook quote is coming to mind…  I think it applies here: “A ship in harbor is safe—but that is not what ships are built for.”

Thanks for reading,

David

[buildingrelationshipsinanarchy]

A New Intimacy Model

So what spurred this project is a culmination of a few things. Namely, frustration with the imprecise and incomprehensible words, Platonic, Romantic, and Sexual. The English language hasn’t been great at adapting the words for personal relationships as our times and values change.

I fell into Anarchism only very recently, stumbling into the language of ‘relationship anarchy’ through the internet in discussion with forms of polyamory years ago when I started this blog. Over the last year, I’ve been getting into radical politics and finding how my un-politicized opinions were validated, and then stretched the more I learned and studied up. While I’m still learning more about Radical politics, Anarchism, Marxism, Queer and Feminist theory specifically, the more I wanted to link some of my perspectives on intimate relationships with these political and theoretical texts.

“The Personal is Political.” - Carol Hanisch, Feminist Author.

@mythr1der​ wrote a post detailing a bit of the frustration I also share in regards to how the Dichotomy between Platonic and Sexual (which almost all definitions of Romance boil back into), leave much to be desired when discussing attraction, desire, intimacy and relationships in general. I believe that this very simple dichotomy reflects, oddly enough, capitalism and the history of the role of state power in culture. I rant a little bit about it as a response to @mythr1der​‘s post here. 

It’s long, and incomplete, but I proposed an idea of just building entirely new words, so we can build an entirely new map for talking about love, desire, attraction, and relationships that actually discuss what its like to be next to someone you like to be next to! 

What is intimacy? It’s closeness right? To be near some ‘intimate’ part of another person, or them near something meaningful about why you’re you. I wanted to start this series by talking about what it means to be close to someone. If you remember my birthday without Facebook, that might make me feel a bit special. But if you remember how badly I was abused by an old friend, its because I trusted you enough to share some of the sadness that I’m not as loud about.

Intimacy isn’t always trauma, sometimes its tears of joy hearing that your cousin is out of prison, or the laughter of your friends. Being close to each other in a hyper-digitized age is a bit tricky, but phone calls, facetime, snapchat are only some of the tools we use to keep each other updating on what we’re feeling. Whether its about our love life, sex life, work life, or home life, just sharing that information can be real special, and bonding.

When we say that we have friends or that we are [Queer] Platonic Partners, does that mean we’ve decided how often we’re gonna talk or what we’re gonna talk about? What if we just send each other memes or rant about politics? Am I supposed to devalue those interactions because they aren’t the person I’m crying on the phone with?

Intimacy can be as deep as childhood scars and as simple as surprising me with my favorite snack. It all just means you know who I am, what I like, and what I care about. I want to intentionally forge those connections. And this why I set these definitions first. 

Other Words:

A Daekkon (n.) would be person/partner whom you’ve developed intentionally this kind of relationship with. 

If you desired this kind of relationship with a certain person, you’d be feeling Daekeen (adj.) for/about that person.

People who are desiring or actively doing these activities together are Daekkoning (v.). 

This would be understood as Daekkonic (adj.) behavior; as in, “My roomate isn’t super talkative with me, but is deakkonic (adj.) with Sandra from the Mosque.” 

“Tom is going through it, he’s felt deakkonically (adv.) deprived since the move.”

________________________________________________________________

In our sex-negative, ironically repressed culture, we seem to think that if you’re touching your bodies together at all, it means *something*.  I want to remove that idea. I want to reclaim physical affection. I want to be touch and be touched by others. I don’t want my afab friends who have experienced some sort of sexual violence in their lives, to ever feel weary about the fact that I’m physically affectionate. It’s been my #1 Love Language for the last 10 years. 

Fighting r*pe culture is a full-time fight, but I think adding a word, and therefore an idea[l], can be useful in reclaiming safety, and boundaries regarding bodily autonomy, for all of us. Clear communication and respected boundaries and asking consent for everything are the bedrock we need to continually practice. And as trust builds, I believe this could be very useful theoretically tool for improving the quality of our relationships and help create clearer discussion about our individual boundaries, needs, and desires. I feel like this leads me to a relevant question. What activities are inherently platonic, romantic or sexual? Is holding hands inherently romantic when almost all of us have done it with a friend? What about those of us who are religious or spiritual and have held hands with members of church, mosque or synagogue; do you think we’re out here non-stop blushing at the Pastor? Or when we held hands with family members? Doesn’t sound like it holds up, huh? 

What about snuggling a roommate? Holding a teammate while celebrating a victory? The kiss my bestfriend gave me on our shared birthday dinner? Are we left to through our Aro and Ace friends’ out of the discussion, just because our culture has bad takes on sex and romance as the only forms possible of significant physical touch? Physical touch is such an important way to communicate love and affection, as well as care, concern, and comfort. They don’t get to cast their shadow on this space anymore!

Other Words:

If you had this desire for someone, or wanted to approach cultivating these forms of affection in a relationship, you could say you’re feeling Phaddish (adj.) for that person.

.Participating or initiating acts of a non-sexual physical intimacy Phadronic (adj.) quality are said to be phade-ing/phading (v.).

A Phadrone (n.) could be the name of a person/partner you share this kind of relationship with. 

Phadroning (v.) would the act of cultivating this kind of intimacy with another person. 

Phadronically (adv.) could describe a certain level of intimacy implicit in a physical touch between to particular people.

________________________________________________________________

Now lets talk about Sex. That’s the thing the everyone’s mind always gravitates to when discuss words like, intimacy, attraction, desire. It’s the thing we want to stay away from when you use the Platonic or Friendly. But, lets be real. Haven’t many of us had sex with people didn’t even consider friends? Or people who became our “Strictly Platonic” friends after we may have had sex, once or several times, with them?

People who gravitate toward polyamory or non-monogamy tend have had a “hoe-phase.” The boundary between friend and lover, or partner and fuckbuddy have been blurred in a good chunk of people’s lives. Non-monogamous or not, I think it’s useful to talk directly about our sexual experiences, desires, fantasies, and how different it can be with different people, or in different stages of our lives. But what makes an experience sexual? Maybe that sounds redundant or obvious; I mean, it’s got the word SEX in it, maybe that’s got something to do with it? But maybe not... 

Lets ask an odd question. Is sex inherently sexual? Who wouldn’t assume the answer is automatically yes? Well, my first thought is to talk to those in the Adult Entertainment industry or friends of ours who are sex-workers, in whatever capacity. Is every client sexy or shoot erotic? Those of us who have sex, have we never been doing it and been bored through most of at least one experience? 

If sex is inherently sexual, why do we have so many Sexual Health Educators, Marriage Counselors, Pornstars, Yoga Teachers, Personal trainers and Writers telling us how to have sexy sex? Dating Coaches and Websites, telling us how we are getting something that’s supposed to sound so easy wrong.

I’ve come to the opinion that sex isn’t about body parts, genitalia, certain body motions, or even clothing [or lack thereof]. I believe that sex, or eroticism, is all about the context and the people involved. There’s nothing inherently sexy about fruit, or food in general, but if woman eats a banana in public, there are at least several men in area thinking of something than her healthy food choices. 

This is why talking about sex directly is good. And understanding it as an energy that you imbue to any activity or circumstance, could help have better sex; and and on the flip-side, show us how we may need to more aware of how we may take up space with our body language. I do also feel, that in part, some of our Ace friends (those who aren’t sex repulsed), may be able to find some resonance with this model; sex doesn’t have to feel passionate or any particular way at all (other than good?), because sex isn’t about sexiness, but about human connection and pleasure.

Other Words:

Serotic (adj.) activities include any activity that is engaged due to, or is infused with, sexual desire and/or erotic intention. It also describes the type of desire you’re feeling for another person. 

A Serato (n.) is any person you engage in serotic activities or feelings with. 

An activity that was originally un-serotic (adj.), but became sexually or erotically charged, we could described as having become Serotically (adv.) charged. 

When you are cultivating or charging an act with serotic energy, you are Seroticizing (v.) that activity

________________________________________________________________

Lately, especially since diving into Radical Politics, I find less and less desire in defining Who I Am as a part of a relationship unit. It’s an overlay from monogamy, The Couple being the only social unit that is recognized, as it’s necessary to the Nuclear Family; a super important thing for Capitalism to sustain itself. The relationships I cultivate with others, with whatever forms of intimacy or interactions therein, cant be understood by that model. I am more than my interactions with a handful of people; I am a human person, and my engagement with the world isn’t actually reducible to whether or not I’m having sex with someone or not. 

We’ve talked about multiple forms of intimacy, and some of the desires or interests associated with them. Have you noticed that in the desire, or need, to discuss relationships on a basis of, ‘sex: yes or no?’, that we haven’t talked about the webs that form because we are all reliant on each other to survive? Not everyone in your community or workplace or online spaces, you’ll get to know or talk to. Do they, as people, matter less because they aren’t in your contacts list or your DM’s?  

This is a space where not a lot of us to tend think or engage as much. An easy word to discuss this space is community. But is a community the people or the place you spend your time, whether online or off? Is the community the place you live and your neighbors? Is it the people who may share some of your identifiers or face similar forms of oppression, despite living in a different city, state, country?

We are multi-dimensional beings, and with the use of technology, there are so many ways to form relationships, and share resources. I think the ‘community’ is any space you find yourself in, which means that mutual aid is something you are always able to engage in. Whether it’s feeding the homeless guys who hang out by the intersection, or dropping a few bucks in a trans kid’s venmo, mutual aid is so much easier.

But what if that feels so inconsequential? It’s not! But it does, from time to time, feel like the problems of the world are so big, and that you and so many you know are suffering in ways you wish you could help. Well, community organizing is always happening somewhere, online and off. It becomes important to join up with others in order feel like we can actually make a positive impact on the lives of others. We don’t have to wait on a government who’s interest isn’t ours, don’t have to wait for some politician to fail on a promise to Make Things Better.

We have each other, and we are all we really have. At the end of the day, all of our concepts are man-made. COVID-19 showed us how drastically things could be different if the people in power made decisions that actually benefited us. A lot of us understand the need to do something. Capitalism says that competition is what drove human kind into evolution, the fight for survival in a meaningless, terrifying world. Anarchism, as I’m learning, throws the whole idea in the trash where it belongs.

Peter Kropotkin, whose been called both the Godfather and Santa Claus of Anarchism, penned in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), “under any circumstances sociability is the greatest advantage in the struggle for life.”

We are better off together. Capitalism and the property relationships in our compulsively monogamous society try to tell us other wise. We don’t have to follow that model.

Other Words:

To Mudshop (v.) is to build a mudship with a particular person, organinzation, or community; Mud-shopping (v.). 

A Mudshipper (n.) is an individual in a mudship of any scale. 

I’ve said a lot. I hope this reads as accessible to as many people as it can be. I built this because I want to tell the people in my life why I love them as dearly as I do. And that I’d love to build relationships with as many awesome, lovely people as I can.

If you try to use the words Romantic and Platonic while you look at this post, and find it almost impossible, I’ve done my job.

I hope those words die along with oppressive ideas they uphold.

[max1461]

Just read Scott Alexander’s post on “conflict theorists” vs. “mistake theorists” and, hmm. I have several thoughts. First, to summarize the concept for anyone who hasn’t seen it before: Alexander links to a reddit post by user u/no_bear_so_low, who originated the idea, saying

There is a way of carving up politics in which there are two basic political meta-theories, that is to say theories about why different political ideologies and political conflict exist. The first theory is that political disagreements exist because politics is complex and people make mistakes, if we all understood the evidence better, we’d agree on a great deal more. We’ll call this the mistake theory of politics. For the mistake theorist, politics is not a zero-sum game, but a matter of growing the pie so there is more for everyone. The second theory is that political disagreements reflect differences in interests which are largely irreconcilable. We’ll call this the conflict theory of politics. According to the conflict theory of politics, politics is full of zero-sum games.

u/no_bear_so_low claims that both the far left and far right are more amenable to conflict theory than liberals are, who lean more towards mistake theory. Alexander seems to agree, though in his own post he’s speaking mainly about Marxists in particular. He summarizes the concept as follows:

To massively oversimplify:

Mistake theorists treat politics as science, engineering, or medicine. The State is diseased. We’re all doctors, standing around arguing over the best diagnosis and cure. Some of us have good ideas, others have bad ideas that wouldn’t help, or that would cause too many side effects.

Conflict theorists treat politics as war. Different blocs with different interests are forever fighting to determine whether the State exists to enrich the Elites or to help the People.

In addition, Alexander subdivides the categories further into “hard” and “soft” versions:

Consider a further distinction between easy and hard mistake theorists. Easy mistake theorists think that all our problems come from very stupid people making very simple mistakes; dumb people deny the evidence about global warming; smart people don’t. Hard mistake theorists think that the questions involved are really complicated and require more evidence than we’ve been able to collect so far [...]

Maybe there’s a further distinction between easy and hard conflict theorists. Easy conflict theorists think that all our problems come from cartoon-villain caricatures wanting very evil things; bad people want to kill brown people and steal their oil, good people want world peace and tolerance. Hard conflict theorists think that our problems come from clashes between differing but comprehensible worldviews.

So what do I think about all this?

Well, it seems to me that this framework is (a) a fairly reasonable descriptive dichotomy, in the sense that, yes, a lot of people do genuinely seem to fall into one of these two camps, and (b) a horrible dichotomy on which to base any prescriptions about political meta-theory, in that these are both awful (and obviously wrong) ways to think about the world. Now, Alexander doesn’t explicitly give any such prescriptions, but he does describe SCC as “hard mistake theorist central”, and generally speaks of mistake theory in approving terms, while speaking of conflict theory in disapproving ones. I think this is bad.

At a base level, my problem with both these “theories” is that they’re, in some sense, just too optimistic.

I agree, for example, with the hard mistake theorist sentiment that the world is full of extremely challenging technical problems, that these problems can be the source of real human suffering, and that the only way to address these problems is through data collection and empirical analysis and hard technical work. And I agree that this will often produce unintuitive conclusions, that run against people’s gut sense of what the right policy might look like. I agree that the state is diseased. I do not agree that “[w]e’re all doctors, standing around arguing over the best diagnosis and cure.” People, it turns out, often do have genuinely different and irreconcilable values, and genuinely do envision different ideal worlds. In addition to that fairly mundane observation, there genuinely are a lot of bad actors, who are just in the game for their own benefit. The world is full of grifters, schemers, and petty (or not so petty) tyrants; on an empirical level that’s just not something you can deny.

On the other hand, I agree with the easy conflict theorist sentiment that, e.g., “bad people want to kill brown people and steal their oil.” There’s plenty of pretty immediate proof of that to be found if you look into the history of colonialism¹, or the slave trade, or US foreign election interference in the twentieth century. Actually, just so I’m not pissing anybody off by only mentioning “western” examples, I’ll include the Khmer Rouge and the Holodomor and comfort women and uh, you get the picture. For god’s sake, the Nazis really existed, and yeah, they really believed all that Nazi shit. In retrospect they may seem like implausibly evil cartoon villains, but in fact they were real flesh and blood humans, just like the rest of us. You think that was just a one-off?

And on a much more mundane note, sometimes (actually, very very often), ordinary people just have incompatible ethical axioms. Sometimes people have genuinely different values, and there are no rational means to sort out which value-set to choose. I suspect this is at least part of the reason for the rationalist community’s skew towards mistake theorizers, in that their favored intellectual tool has more-or-less nothing to offer when it comes to selecting your values (=ethical axioms, =terminal goals, etc). I mean, of course rationality is good for diagnosing contradictions in your value set, but it can’t tell you how to resolve those contradictions. That’s the domain of intuition, empathy, and aesthetics, were data cannot light your way.

However, I do not agree with the conflict theorists’ underlying sentiment that if “the good people” were just in charge, everything would be better. After all, there are all those pesky technical problems with unintuitive solutions getting in the way, requiring all kinds of expertise and thorough empirical study and uh, plenty of them might not even be solvable.² This is a huge deal. It’s incredibly easy to have the best of intentions and still make horrible mistakes by virtue of just... happening to have the facts wrong. Not through malice, or self-interest, or even some nicely-explainable sociological bias like white fragility or whatever. Just because problems are hard, and sometime you will fail to solve them. Even when people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake.

Here’s a handy latex-formatted table for your comprehending pleasure:

lol, we live there.

So this all sounds a bit pessimistic and, well, I suppose it is. I think we have a responsibility to acknowledge the gravity of our situation. We could, conceivably, live in a world that was structured according to either the conflict theorist’s vision or the mistake theorist’s vision, but we don’t. We live in a much scarier world, and if we don’t face that terrifying reality head-on, we’re not going to be able to overcome it.

Now, in general, I’d say I spend a lot of my internet-argument-energy-allowance trying to persuade [what I perceive to be] overly conflict-theorizing leftists in the direction of a greater recognition of the genuine technical difficulty of the problems we face. It's probably worth making a separate post about why I think a “denial of unintuitive solutions” is so common on the left, but I’ll just mention here that I think it relates to what I once jokingly called the “Humanistic gaze”. That is, the bias to view everything quite narrowly through the lens of the humanities, and to view all problems as fundamentally sociological in nature. When the world is constructed entirely by humans and human social relations, there’s a level at which nothing can be unintuitive. After all, an intersubjective world must ultimately be grounded in subjective experience, and subjective experience is literally made of intuition.

I usually don’t spend much time pursuing the dual activity (trying to argue liberals out of [what I perceive to be] an overly mistake-theorizing perspective). This is largely because, well, I think the optimistic assumption that mistake theorists make —that most people have basically compatible goals, and that relatively few people are working out of abject self-interest or hatred or whatever— is so obviously false that it doesn’t warrant as much genuine critique as it warrants responding with memes about US war crimes. The principal of charity is best extended to ideas, not people or institutions. You can take the neocons’ arguments seriously without extending charity to the neocons as agents.

The post concludes with Alexander writing

But overall I’m less sure of myself than before and think this deserves more treatment as a hard case that needs to be argued in more specific situations. Certainly “everyone in government is already a good person, and just has to be convinced of the right facts” is looking less plausible these days.

And uh, yeah. Indeed.

So, in conclusion: is politics medicine, or is it war? No, it’s politics.

There are disagreements, and conflicts of interest, and coalition building, and policy-wonkery, and logistics. There is, as with anything involving the state, the implicit threat of violence. (That’s where the state’s power comes from, remember? Whether it’s their power to tax, or their power to enforce individual property rights to begin with. Their power to regulate or build infrastructure or legally construct corporate personhood or whatever. There’s more than a bit of game theory involved, sure, but the rules of the game are set through the armory.) Every scholarly technocrat with double-blind peer reviewed policy suggestions still ultimately just decides who the guns get pointed at, if at several layers of abstraction. Every righteous people’s vanguard is still bound by the mathematics of production and the dynamics of a chaotic world. There are no easy solution, not conceptually easy nor practically easy. And unless we recognize that on a very deep level, we have no chance of fixing anything.

[1] I’d quote my go-to example here, of the truly ghastly stories relayed to linguist R. M. Dixon by the Dyirbal people of Australia about their subjugation at the hands of white settlers, but unfortunately I don’t have his book with me at the moment. Also this post would require several additional trigger warnings.

[2] I mean, after all, there are only countably many Turing machines, and the set of all languages with finitely many symbols has cardinality 2^(aleph_0)!

[supercalvin]

I'm in a similar boat. Thanks for making things a bit easier! 16M for Merthur?

16. Reincarnation AU + M. Amnesia

Yeah, everything is kind of up in the air right now. I’m taking it one day at a time. I hope these little ficlets are at least somethingto distract everyone for just a bit.

Prompts (or any prompt)  + Ficlets

***

Arthur was showing his new Personal Assistant around the office, seemingly a normal enough thing to do. Arthur off-handedly pointed outa photo of the company’s opening day, a grainy sepia photo that hung across from Arthur’s office, when things got weird.

“Oh I remember that year,” Merlin said, “Really hot summer, to be honest.”

“What do you mean, ‘oh your remember that?’” Arthur stared at his new Personal Assistant. “This company was founded in 1898.”

“Oh yeah, sorry, forgot I hadn’t told you yet,” Merlin said with a funny crooked smile, “I’m a RS.”

“A what?”

Merlin tilted his head, “An RS? You know, a Reincarnated Soul?”

Arthur wondered how surprised he looked, because he felt alittle stunned, to say the least. RS cases were rare. So rare that Arthur hadnever met anyone with a reincarnated soul. In fact, he was positive that everyone he knew had never met someone with a reincarnated soul. He was certain if he played the degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon game, that even then, he wouldn’t find someone with a reincarnated soul. And Merlin had just said it on the first day of his job as it was normal.

Merlin’s smile slipped a little, “Is that alright? You can’t sack me for magic-discrimination.”

Arthur shook his head, snapping himself out of it “Of course not, Merlin. It’s just that I have never met- Nevermind.  It’s fine. Let me show you the break room next.”

Arthur had never looked into RS cases before. He had neverhad a need or a want before. His father had been anti-magic, so Arthur hadn’t grownup with much of an education on magic, let alone rare forms of magic. After a month of working with Merlin though, he found himself diving in the deep hole that was RS magic, because Merlin kept saying the wildest things.

‘I miss the taste of bananas.’

‘That song was absolutely brilliant and literally no one remembers it, and I hate that.’

‘I’m so glad we invented the internet. Do you know how many stupid things I used to believe?’

‘One of my mums was kind of a hippie and after that lifetime I never went back to eating meat.”

‘That sesame seed oil thing was never a good idea, Linda. An appeal to ancient wisdom is a classic fallacy and you should know better.’

‘When you’ve been married as many times as I have, you learn a thing or two.’

Arthur was getting so many weird pieces of information about Merlin and he had no idea how to process any of them. His curiosity was killing him, but he was positive it was rude to ask that many personal questions of your employee. So he continued living in ignorance.

All the while, Merlin became one of his closest friends. (Arthur was a bit of a workaholic. He denied this on several occasions but thefact that his PA was one of his closest friends did not help his case.) Despite seemingly being on opposite ends of every kind of spectrum, they got along well.They often went out for drinks after work, and Merlin had gotten in the habit of going on a jog with Arthur on Saturday mornings and getting a coffee afterwards.

Besides the weird tidbits that Merlin dropped every once anda while, Arthur didn’t learn much more about Merlin’s other lives. But he did learn a lot about Merlin’s current life. He was young, single, and just moved to London for this job. He was a vegetarian, volunteered at a magical-creature shelter, and cried at any kind of sappy commercial or film. He grew up in a small village, was raised in a magic-positive household, and he was bisexual.

Arthur could not have been more different from Merlin, and yet, he couldn’t help but find that he was falling arse over tit for him.

It all came to head at the company’s annual charity ball. Merlin was dressed in a navy blue suit with a white scarf draped over his shoulders. On his lapel he wore a small triskelion pin and his tie clip was in the shape of a dragon. He looked stunning and Arthur was suddenly hit with how absolutely gone for him he was.

“Evening,” Merlin said with a small smile, “You look nice. And you made it here on time without my help, so it’s a miracle really.”

Arthur smiled and passed Merlin a glass of champagne, “Really,Merlin, I am your boss. You should be nicer to me.”

“Where’s the fun in that?” Merlin’s eyes strayed to his suit, and Arthur saw the exact moment he noticed the pride flag lapel pin. His face froze and he looked up at Arthur with an analytical look. “Nice pin.”

“Thanks,” Arthur’s throat felt tight, “It’s my first time wearing it.”

Merlin nodded, “Ah, I see.”

“Yeah,” Arthur shrugged, trying to put distance between himself and this awkward moment.

The rest of night went smoothly, no one else commented onhis pin, which was a bit of a relief. He may or may not have drank more than planned in celebration of it going smoothly, which was always a bad idea.

Merlin pulled Arthur into the car, “Jesus, you weigh a ton. Can you please use your own legs?”

“’m no’ fat.”

“Didn’t say you were, prat.”

Arthur laughed, his head leaning on Merlin’s shoulder, “You always call me a prat.”

Merlin was silent for a while, but Arthur didn’t notice because his drunken mind was focusing on not puking.

“How many times have you been alive?” Arthur slurred, “I know I’m not supposed to ask, but I can’t stop thinking about it. Did you meet anyone famous? Were you anyone famous? Were you always named ‘Merlin?’ We’re you queer in your other lifetimes too?”

“Arthur,” Merlin sighed, “Let’s just get you home, alright?”

“Do you not want to tell me?” Arthur pouted, “Do you not like me?”

“Jesus Christ, why do you always get really flirty or maudlin when you’re drunk? It’s such a weird dichotomy, honestly.”

“Have I been drunk with you before?” Arthur stumbled as Merlin pulled him out of the cab. “I think I would remember that.”

Merlin was silent again, but Arthur’s drunken brain needed to focus on getting up the stairs. Suddenly, they were in Arthur’s flat, andMerlin was handing him a glass of water.

“Thanks,” He drank it all in one go, already realizing he was going to hate himself in the morning.

He had been right, of course. He woke up on his couch thenext morning and remembered all the weird questions he had asked Merlin, and immediately regretted all of it. But there were a few things that stuck out tohim.

He was jolted out of his thoughts when he heard his toaster ding and the shuffle of feet. Merlin appeared in the doorway.

“Coffee,” Merlin sat down next to Arthur. “Toast. Paracetamol.”

Arthur stared at Merlin, surprised to see him in his flat, before he took the offerings without complaint.

“Feeling better?”

Arthur nodded, studying Merlin closely for a moment. “Last night… last night you said I’m always flirty or maudlin when drunk.”

Merlin’s face flushed and he rose quickly, “Oh, you know,” He laughed nervously, taking Arthur’s empty plate and trying to dash into the kitchen. Arthur grabbed his arm, stopping his flight.

“You’ve never called me a prat before.”

Merlin avoided his eye.

“Why did I say that you always call me a prat, when I don’t remember you ever saying that?”

Merlin bit his lip.

“Am I still drunk?” Arthur asked, his heart rate rising.

“No,” Merlin gave him a small apologetic smile.

“Am I…?” Arthur shook his head, “Why am I remembering things about you that didn’t happen?”

Merlin sighed, “I’m not really supposed to tell you. You’re supposed to remember on your own. I only started remembering you specifically after I started working for you.”

“But, I am…I am…”

“A reincarnated soul? Yes.” Merlin smiled, “Took you awhile. Sometimes it does.”

Arthur had to sit down. “And I knew you? Once before?”

Merlin gave him a funny smile and Arthur blanched further, “More than once?”

Merlin actually laughed, which made Arthur feel even more off kilter. Merlin said, “I’ve known you in every lifetime, Arthur. And Ireally should wait until you get more memories back, but I want you to knowthat I will find you in every lifetime after this.”

Arthur looked up at Merlin, a small hysterical laugh escaping his lips. “Fuck. And I was worried about asking you out.”

Merlin smiled, “You still have to woo me, love. I’m not that easy.”

Arthur laughed again, “This is insane. I want to kiss you. Have we kissed before?”

“Not in this lifetime, and that’s all that matters.” Merlin leaned forward, and pecked a kiss on Arthur’s cheek. “Come on, let’s get you some more food and we can weed through your memories.”

Arthur leaned forward, tilting Merlin’s head back and giving him a proper kiss, a shock of electricity going through his system that he hadnever felt before. It felt like he had kissed Merlin a million times before and like it was his first kiss all over again.

Merlin smiled at him, “Well hello there.”

Arthur narrowed his eyes, “Why am I remembering you in a feather hat?”

Merlin just laughed.

***

Prompts (or any prompt)  + Ficlets

[susoftjockau]

The Plan - Part Four (Carly) + Epilogue

There was a reason Carly was written last on the list she and Steven had back at the food truck.

One fact to recall was the cold intensity of her dorm mate — who, throughout her moments of bumping into her in the early mornings to pack up and get ready for classes — always brushed her aside and never spoken a word or greeting before going through the front door. Sure, they shared the same kitchen island, brewing their favorites — coffee and tea, eating the same ingredients to survive the day, but the atmosphere she bore off was akin to a snake observing the trappings of a mouse.

In other words, she was scary. Very scary.

Yet even with this insight, Connie tried her best to talk to her, watching shows on the couch as time went by. The shows varied from the casual viewing: there was Under the Knife, going on for twenty minutes before they moved on; Poindexter, which took an hour until interest became fleeting at the newest season; Dogcopter 3 — which Carly laid down the inevitable rating of ‘mediocre and a disaster to the Dogcopter franchise’; and many other shows and movies that didn’t live up to their expectations and excitement for the day.

It wasn’t exciting, well; it felt exciting in its own way. Even with the notion they had to hang out for a great period of time, there weren’t any pushes to speak. It was just the two of them, watching fictional characters go through life in the most poetic or dumbest ways a writer could implement them to do. Connie wished it stayed that way. She loved staying in this perpetual state of media watching, no discourse to be found except for the occasional comments from both of them on how an anime didn’t work out or how a particular movie would rather flaunt its busty women around than a coherent plot.

But Carly found a way to break that silence.

And it was all because of Clockwork Philosopher; that and its remake.

Connie was the type to defend, be the morally correct debater for stuff such as Clockwork Philosopher and its remade counterpart, but that’s the tricky part when it came to that anime series in question: there were committed fans from both ends, ready to fight to the teeth on what they believe is crucial, even if Philosopher’s Solitude version was the best piece of media she’d ever consumed in all her seventeen years of living. Carly was the one who didn’t believe such a statement, and, much to Connie’s dismay, was okay with arguing this over hot cocoa and tea.

It didn’t come out of nowhere. It was a gradual rise where both of them brought upon comments of the characters, of the plot, of the people they rooted for and somehow it all lead up to the discussion on which was better: Clockwork Philosopher or the Solitude version.

Which one had the appeal? Which one carried favorability to both of them?

Connie chose Solitude.

Carly, to her surprise, chose the original.

When asking her why, Carly responded.

“Solitude didn’t play up to what I expected.” It was calm, the type of voice that sounded matter-of-fact if one focused, if one took the time to listen to the lilt in her words. “Instead of giving me an interesting dichotomy between characters and commentary over the human experience, I got shounen caricatures — no tinkering with archetypes, nothing about how they full-on cope; just people who don’t change, keeping up with their platitudes rather than having it be challenged to the brink.”

“But they do though.” She kept herself to the sidelines with this whole debacle, but there was a passion riding her words, hidden in the need to keep herself composed and correct. Debating was something she always had a passion for. There was something intense in being able to argue with someone over something you’ve researched or binged for so long, like the reward was to gloat or get some form of digital pat on the back for one’s diligence towards the whole thing. 

They fumbled with their cups, warm to the touch, allowing their television to go on with a scene from the anime in question. Connie continued on. “What you’re saying goes against a great deal with Solitude. People have been subverted, given life and roles in the anime than in the original, they’re seen as people rather than cardboard cut-outs.”

Carly gave a nod to that. Another sip greeting the quiet. “I’m curious. Can you explain more of your reasons?”

And the argument would continue forth for a while. 

Both watched the other in this state of bliss and gripes in their tranquil bubble. At first, Connie tried her best to not get involved. She liked conflict where the future of it was determined, not given the option to roam around in probability, to whatever hellish path in consequences it had in mind. She added her pieces, given viewpoints that should’ve brought Carly to her knees, yet Carly didn’t heed.

Carly was composed throughout it. With that curious look of hers, eyeing her with no malice but of intense scrutiny akin to a magnifying glass. Something about it left her restless, lost in a myriad of threads where they would babble and discuss the anime in such a way that Connie had no clue when it would end; whether they would stop it altogether and just allow themselves to watch was an inevitable question — and the answer was: they wouldn’t.

Connie wanted that win. That satisfaction of saying ‘ahah’ to the woman’s face, and Carly — illegible as ever — seemed to prod at her, cornering her in ways that made her feel heated and tense. How could she be so calculated over this? Usually when Connie argued it was over forums where another would get aggressive, ready to rip her teeth out with emotion rather than facts, and when that happened she felt accomplished, morally justified, for she took it with stride. There weren’t any moments where she’d notice a dip in her words or her viewpoints (everything looked solid, put-together, thought out). But not here.

Just...hell no. Not here.

Carly clicked her tongue, harsh and quick. The warmth of their cups were gone, drank to the drenches with nowhere else to go but onto the coffee table in front of them. Connie was tapping her knee. The other didn’t seem to fidget, or sweat, or babble; she looked poised. It was irritating to watch now that the argument had gotten more intense.

“Look.” She started, with that same passive tone to her that made Connie want to groan out in annoyance. But Connie was supposed to be kind, respectful. She wasn’t going to blow a gasket over an argument like this, she wasn’t that petty. “An anime could be the most perfect piece of media in all the land, but that still won’t bargain with me. If they hit the objective writing goals then I don’t care — good on them for being responsible writers, following and conforming to the status of writing in general — but if a writer can’t make me feel the humanity in them, then it’s not worth it. If they can’t get out of their comfort zone and go beyond then there’s no point, it’s boring to me.”

“But they do go beyond.” Connie gritted her teeth, watching the woman continue to stare at her, with that muted expression of hers. She was always calm, always the one to resolve and be the strong and morally-correct debater with animes such as this, but it was hard to stare at Carly with this feeling, this lack of victory. There was the crushing reality that this wasn’t the internet; that the choice to just walk away with that feeling of accomplishment was long gone at this point. So everything to her fell flat, each argument that rose from her lips cornered to something incomprehensible. There was one last argument she had in her mind. Like one would grapple straws, she used it. In her heart, in her timid but firey heart, she wanted to win. “They didn't even give the female characters the moments to be fully realized in the original until Solitude showed off their competency and involvement!"

"But it isn't." Carly's expression kept mute, voice level. It pinched at her, hard. God, why is everything getting crowded? Scorching to the collar? "When it came to character, the original nailed it down. Solitude gave the screen time, but not the true exploration of mankind."

"But you're ignoring the characters they've done justice."

"I'm not."

"Yes, you are."

"I'm just being level and open-minded," Carly said. "You don't have to get so heated about this if you’re going to be a sore loser over this."

She shot up.

"Can you stop being a bitch about this!?" Connie widened her eyes at that. Looking at Carly, something shifted in her expression too, illegible and foreign, terrifying to process.

She never did that before, she never did that before to anyone in real life.

She fucked up. She fucked up.

Carly's going to hunt her down for this, condemn her to some weird-ass college version of the Salem trials, and it's all her fau—

"Feels good, doesn't it?"

Connie looked at her: Carly's eyes crinkled in amusement, a grin on her features — genuine, no malice to be found. "What?"

"Don't just stand there." Carly ushered her. "Go on, tell me!"

"I don't know, I'm sor—"

"You don't like my opinions." Carly continued, voice rising a bit. "You don't want to agree with them; why are you trying to conform and stay silent when you could tell me that my opinions could be debated?"

"Because that would be rude!"

"What's more rude?" She motioned towards the show. "Telling me that Shou Tucker isn't a bastard or yelling at me that my way of arguing could be jarring to listen to?"

Connie stumbled, words spilling out in incoherent rivers — all the justifications and reasons became cut-up, cut off as she tried to find some silver of rationality that would make Carly back down. But she did like the fight...didn't she?

"Give me your fire, Maheswaran." Carly's eyes narrowed. "Or I'll bring my honest-to-God opinions to the table."

She hesitated. "What honest opinions?"

"About anything we're discussing right now. In fact, I'm planning to bring out the big guns."

"What do you—"

"SAO."

No.

No no no no no.

"You wouldn't."

"I would."

Connie saw the grin, the eagerness, and she couldn't help but feel it rub off on her — the same expression adorning her features.

Carly took it as the go-to, for the next statement hit both of them like a gunshot: 

"SAO isn't bad of a show."

She really liked this, didn’t she?

-----

“Well, that’s good!” Steven had that beam of a smile again, starting to lean more against the table — which Connie advised against before the table could rock more at his weight. “Like I said, three is better than nothing. You did amazing!”

In retrospect, she saw that too. There was still the awkwardness with many of them, but she now had something better: a few acquaintances (friends, they were friends) who are okay with having her in the group, making things easier if she needed it. Connie rubbed her neck, trying her best to respond. “Yeah. But the next few days aren’t going to be great.”

In their plan, they had a few things settled. One of them was the idea of hangouts, wherein their attempts to make her loosen up and relax to Steven’s group of friends, she’ll be exposed to them interacting with her for a great deal of the day. And the idea didn’t feel pleasant. It felt claustrophobic more than anything.

She looked down. Steven’s hand was on hers, warmth spreading to her knuckles as the man kept his grip. It was soft, tender. He wasn’t going to hurt her, and that always was a fact when it came to Steven. A sweetheart by trade. “You don’t have to do it immediately. It doesn’t have to be today or tomorrow or even in a few months. It all comes down to how comfortable you are.”

Connie smiled at him, giving the man a small nod. “I’ll tell you when I’m ready, okay?” She shifted their hands, allowing her to reciprocate his hold, allowing their intertwined fingers to play and brush against the other. “I want to hang out with you. I want to hang out with your friends. I just need some time.”

He hummed. “Alright. We’ll start on your word.”

It was a relief to know he was careful. It was a relief to know that he cared.

- @borkthemork

[the-light-followed]

EQUAL RITES (1987) [DISC. #3; WITCHES #1]

“‘Where does it say it?’ said Granny triumphantly.  ‘Where does it say women can’t be wizards?’  

The following thoughts sped through Cutangle’s mind:

…It doesn’t say it anywhere, it says it everywhere.  

…But young Simon seemed to say that everywhere is so much like nowhere that you can’t really tell the difference.  

…Do I want to be remembered as the first Archchancellor to allow women into the University?  Still…I’d be remembered, that’s for sure.”

Rating: 6/10

Standalone Okay: Yes

Read First: Yeah, if you like magic and bad puns, you’ll be fine.

Discworld Books Masterpost: [x]

* * * * * * * * * *

Equal Rites does not mess around.  It’s early Discworld, so you’ve still got a little bit of that High Fantasy vibe to it, where sometimes Pratchett just spews fantastical-sounding terms and concepts so that the reader can’t forget that This is Fantasy, We Are Not in Kansas Anymore, Folks!  And to be perfectly honest, a lot of the plot, especially the early stuff, is kind of forgettable.  There’s a lot of people talking to people about doing stuff before the actual doing gets done, if you know what I mean.

But that doesn’t really matter, because Equal Rites has important shit to say and, by god, Pratchett is going to say it. And in case you didn’t bother to read the book itself, you can tell just by looking at the title that a) it’s about gender inequality in the magical community, and b) there’s going to be puns. So many puns.  Sir Terry, please, take pity on me.  I just don’t have the time to go around explaining to every person I meet on the street why this kind of thing makes me absolutely batshit feral for the Discworld.  

I love it so much.

Anyway.  Equal Rites is the story of Eskarina Smith, or Esk, the first ever female to be born a wizard.  The whole concept of ‘the eighth son of an eighth son is chosen by the magical staff of a dying wizard to become a new wizard’ brings up a lot of questions for me—a lot of questions that will never be answered—but if I ignore that and just accept that it’s true, then by Discworld tradition Esk is undeniably a wizard. She is the eighth, uh, child of an eighth son, chosen at birth by the magical staff of a wizard who promptly dies and decides to be reincarnated as a weirdly randy tree and then, later, as an ant.

…Cool, I guess.

More importantly, and also by Discworld tradition, Esk undeniably cannot be a wizard, because she’s born female.  Honestly, Pratchett might as well have named this Sit Down and Shut Up While I Talk About Gender Roles and Gender Inequality, You All Are Going to Listen to Me Because I’m Going to Make Bad Puns While I Do It.

Over the course of the book, Pratchett does some deep dives into what it means to be a witch, what it means to be a wizard, how they’re the same, how they’re different—and why none of that actually matters.  For something published over thirty years ago, I think Equal Rites holds up incredibly well as a conversation on gender and society, and it’s still just as relevant as ever.  It just goes to show that a) writing with thought, kindness, and care makes for a timeless product, and b) society really hasn’t made that much progress since 1987, has it?  It’s a little sad that the issues Pratchett wants us to think about here are still just as recognizable and just as common in the world as they were thirty-three years ago.

(Kind of as a side note, there are definitely things I don’t think Pratchett considered about the basic premise he’s set up, namely that just because Esk was born with a certain set of genitals, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything about her gender.  I’ve seen a lot of discussion, especially on the internet, about trans Esk, and trans wizards and witches, and what that would mean for the Discworld universe—really interesting stuff, things people should definitely look into, but not what I’m going to focus on here.  I would highly recommend that people think about it, especially cis people like me. It would be wrong to go through Equal Rites without even bringing it up, even if I read the text as more as a discussion of gender roles rather than gender identity. Since Pratchett was a cishet man writing this in the 80s, I’m also willing to bet it’s what he was intending. But it’s still an important conversation to have.)

Anyway, let’s jump in and look at the dichotomy that Pratchett is setting up for us!

What is a witch?  What is a wizard?  How are they the same, and how are they different?  Why does that split matter?

I did the messy work of going through my copy of the book and highlighting every instance where definitions are provided for ‘witches’ and ‘wizards,’ specifically so that I could run a compare-contrast, and I want to point out right off the bat that basically all of the details on so-called ‘defining’ features of these two schools of magic are provided through characters and their POV—direct dialogue and thoughts—not by word-of-god narration or omniscient POV.  So, obviously, we have to run all this through the internal bias filter; this stuff is all what people believe about wizards, witches, and magic, not necessarily how things are.

What makes a witch, according to Equal Rites:

Magic out of the ground

Dress in black to look the part

Witches bow. They’ve got to be different from everyone else; it’s “part of the secret” (headology)

Cunning, old (or they try to look it)

Suspicious, homely, and organic magic

Appearance of magic can do more work than actual magic (headology)

“Leaving the world as it was and changing the people”

They can “Borrow” and work gently

“Fighting her [Granny] was like swatting a fly on your own nose”: if you don’t struggle and make waves, you can do a lot with less outright power

Do the messy, practical stuff, not just the flash

Always, “without exception, women”

What makes a wizard:

Magic out of the sky

Over-the-top ways of dressing up to look the part, often with robes and sequins

“Books and stars and jommetry.”  (Granny absolutely does not know what geometry is, or what it is for.)

“Talked too much and pinned spells down in books like butterflies,” and looked at “numbers and angles and edges and what the stars are doing”

Wise, old

Powerful, complex, and mysterious magics

Magic is condensed out of the air and into the staff, and used by the wizard

“Magic changed the world in some way, wizards thought there was no other use for it”

Can’t “Borrow,” only take/seize control

Too busy with the “infinite” and “never noticing the definite”

 Always, “without exception, men”

Witches “normally work with what actually exists in the world,” while a wizard can give thoughts shape, “put flesh on his imagination.” Witches learn to walk softly and move over and around an obstacle, while wizards puff up and fight to go straight through it.

Witches “need a head.”  Wizards “need…a heart.”

In short, witches are self-taught, intuitive, grounded in reality, and fluid in their magic use—when they actually use it at all.  They work with what they feel and what they know about the world.  Wizards are academics and learn from set rules and their books, and their magic is often over-complex, overpowered, and difficult to control.  Wizards are more rigid and structured in their magic use—ritualistic, even—but less connected to reality or grounded in the real world.

And, of course, both groups wear fabulous outfits and dramatic pointed hats!

Just look at ‘em.  Such wonderful weirdos.

The more I look at the ‘definitions’ like this, all laid out and proper, the more I start to think that the witches who do things we would consider ‘bad’ witchcraft are just correctly using elements of wizardry. For example, think about Mrs. Earwig, with her books and rituals, her special tools and fancy dress code; even though she doesn’t focus on the world around her or the people in it, the way a ‘good’ witch would, she’s good at what she does, and so certain in herself that she can stare down the glamor of the Queen of the Elves without flinching in The Shepherd’s Crown.  On the other hand, we have our classic ‘bad’ wizard, Rincewind, who demonstrates some exceptionally witchy tendencies—he’s excellent at headology even if actual magic isn’t really in his wheelhouse, as Interesting Times makes pretty obvious.  And despite the fact that he’s a coward-sprinter who’d really rather avoid danger if at all possible, when it comes down to it, he’s still the man who’ll put himself between the world and a great evil with nothing but trembling knees, a spine reluctantly turned from water to iron, and a half-brick in a sock.  As Granny would say, he walks the line.

So, really, what does gender actually have to do with it? Why is there a distinction at all? Is it actually important?

And to make a long novel short, what Pratchett is saying in Equal Rites is that it’s not.  There’s no difference between witchcraft and wizardry that actually makes for a good reason for a gendered split.  Men aren’t inherently better at math and academia, or as Granny says, “jommetry;” women aren’t inherently more practical, emotional, or intuitive.  That’s a social construct, not a biological one.

And beyond that, even, there’s no real reason for the two ‘types’ of magic to be split up at all.  They might be different ways of operating, but it’s all magic.  Anyone could do either.  Or neither.  Or both.

There’s an early conversation between Death and the wizard whose mix-up with his staff marked Esk as a wizard—just after the man has died, when he’s realized that he’s passed his magic along to a female and, in his mind, made a terrible mistake.  “I was foolish,” he says, “I assumed the magic would know what it was doing.”  But instead of agreeing, Death tells him, “PERHAPS IT DOES.”

It all comes down to what Esk calls magic beyond magic—the reality of the thing beyond the concepts we’ve created to define and confine it.  If we’ve invented these distinctions between ‘types’ of magic, between ‘types’ of gender and the self, then what remains once we’ve removed them?  What happens when we peel them away and see what’s left behind? Why do we cling to our invented categories, the things that limit both sides and create conflict?

I really like that Equal Rites never puts Esk into a specific category.  She doesn’t end the book as a ‘true’ wizard or a ‘true’ witch, but she also doesn’t fully reject either.  As sad as I am that Pratchett never goes much deeper into Esk (her brief appearance in I Shall Wear Midnight doesn’t actually explain much), I’m fine with not having a concrete answer.  One, the other, both, neither—it’s not the point.  Magic is magic.  People are people.  Gender is, honestly, irrelevant.  Beyond the academic divides we’ve made for ourselves, it’s all the same stuff given different names.  Esk does magic, and she is herself, and in the end, she’s not bound by the limitations that witches and wizards put on their reality.

Infinite possibilities!

It’s something the other wizards and witches never get to have.  They’re so locked into what they believe magic to be, what they believe themselves to be, that they never really look outside those boxes.

It’s wild to me that the concept Pratchett is introducing here—specifically about wizards and witches and gender—basically disappears as long as Esk does.  Esk is a really cool character; the idea of female wizards and male witches is fascinating. I want more of all this.  So, I’m genuinely sad that Esk doesn’t reappear again until the Tiffany Aching books, specifically I Shall Wear Midnight—in 2010, more than twenty years after Equal Rites was published.  And we don’t get another wizard or witch or magic-user in general working outside their typical gender alignment until Geoffrey appears in 2015 in The Shepherd’s Crown and asks to become a witch, and even then, the witches take to calling him a ‘calm-weaver’ instead.

I like that the idea eventually comes full circle.  I don’t like that the circle takes thirty years, and goes basically unacknowledged in the meantime.

But the point Pratchett is making is still there in the Discworld, and it never really goes away.  Remember how I said earlier that this stuff—all this ‘witches do and are x, wizards do and are y, that’s how it has to be’ nonsense—it’s all what people believe about magic and such, not how things are?  Pratchett and Discworld are huge on belief.  Belief shapes reality, belief becomes real, and we see that over and over again.  But part of what Pratchett is saying here is that even if we all believe in something, then it doesn’t mean that it’s right.  Just because something is doesn’t mean it should be.

More importantly, though, it also doesn’t mean we’ve locked ourselves in place.  Esk proves that much.  We learn. We grow.  We change our understanding of our reality and ourselves, and we believe something different.  And then the world changes, too.

* * * * * * * * * *

Side Notes:

We get to see Granny Weatherwax for the first time!  She’s absolutely fabulous and I love this sharp-tongued bitter old lady so much.  In later books starring the witches we will focus in a lot more on Granny herself as a witch and a person, rather than just as a teacher.

Granny Weatherwax is said to live in the village of Bad Ass in Equal Rites.  In future books, she will live in Lancre.

There actually aren’t that many footnotes in this one.  Since I kind of just…expect footnotes to appear in every book Terry Pratchett touches, despite the fact that they’re super rare everywhere else, it’s almost weirder to not see a footnote every page and a half.

Esk does some magical nonsense—mainly by not realizing the magic she’s doing should be impossible—that ends up “changing the Discworld in thousands of tiny ways.”  This is probably part of Pratchett’s attempt to slowly shift what he started establishing in The Colour of Magic to what we’ll see in later Discworld books, moving from High Fantasy to more of a, I don’t know, steampunk-y magical surrealism?  What even is the Discworld, I ask you?  It’s impossible to describe.  But what Esk does to it here is described as follows: “the wavefront of probability struck the edge of Reality and rebounded like the slosh off the side of the pond which, meeting the laggard ripples coming the other way, caused small but important whirlpools in the very fabric of existence.  You can have whirlpools in the fabric of existence, because it is a very strange fabric.”

We get our first mention of sourcerers here in Equal Rites, but they’re not very well defined. We’re just told that they’re now extinct.  They’ll turn up in a lot more detail in a couple books, of course, once we get to Sourcery.

Favorite Quotes:

“I know what I mean, she told herself.  Magic’s easy, you just find the place where everything is balanced and push.  Anyone could do it.  There’s nothing magical about it.  All the funny words and waving the hands is just…it’s only for…  She stopped, surprised at herself.  She knew what she meant.  The idea was right up there in the front of her mind.  But she didn’t know how to say it in words, even to herself.”

“‘But,’ he said, ‘if it’s wizard magic she’s got, learning witchery won’t be any good, will it?  You said they’re different.’  ‘They’re both magic.  If you can’t learn to ride an elephant, you can at least ride a horse.’”

“The old witch yanked the staff out of its shadow and waved it vaguely at Esk.  ‘Here.  It’s yours. Take it.  I just hope this is the right thing to do.’  In fact the presentation of a staff to an apprentice wizard is usually a very impressive ceremony, especially if the staff has been inherited from an elder mage; by ancient lore there is a long and frightening ordeal involving masks and hoods and swords and fearful oaths about people’s tongues being cut out and their entrails torn by wild birds and their ashes scattered to the eight winds and so on.  After some hours of this sort of thing the apprentice can be admitted to the brotherhood of the Wise and Enlightened.  There is also a long speech.  By sheer coincidence Granny got the essence of it in a nutshell.”

“‘Never mind what I said, or common sense or anything.  Sometimes you just have to go the way things take you, and I reckon you’re going to wizard school one way or the other.’  Esk considered this.  ‘You mean it’s my destiny?’ she said at last.  Granny shrugged.  ‘Something like that.  Probably. Who knows?’”

“Animal minds are simple, and therefore sharp.  Animals never spend time dividing experience into little bits and speculating about all the bits they’ve missed.  The whole panoply of the universe has been neatly expressed to them as things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks.”

“‘Why are you holding that broomstick?’ he said.  Esk looked at it as though she had never seen it before.  ‘Everything’s got to be somewhere,’ she said.”

“Why was it that, when she heard Granny ramble on about witchcraft she longed for the cutting magic of wizardry, but whenever she heard Treatle speak in his high-pitched voice she would fight to the death for witchcraft?  She’d be both, or none at all.  And the more they intended to stop her, the more she wanted it.  She’d be a witch and a wizard too.  And she would show them.”

“‘Million-to-one chances,’ she said, ‘crop up nine times out of ten.’”

“For a moment he nursed the strangely consoling feeling that his life was totally beyond his control and whatever happened no one could blame him.”

[midnightmarginalia]

Ho fuck this is long

Ok so like. I made a fucking mistake. I wrote an essay for my creative non-fiction class. We had to write a Lyric Essay. simple enough. it's whatever. I transcribed parts of my journal. it was fun. HOWEVER, I made the mistake of telling the class that I did some heavy editing to get rid of some unconventional grammar I use cuz internet, ya know? this was 3 days ago. jump to today. I wrote a 7-page essay trying to briefly explain SOME of the grammar conventions that have evolved alongside the internet. I had to explain this to a group of 40+ year-olds. so NOw I present this to you, o Tumblr. for the love of god let people read this and add to it, I spent eternally too much time on it 

So "Internet English" or "New English" is a linguistic phenomenon that centers on conveying tone and different connotative meanings through informal writing. Linguist Gretchen McCulloch actually released a book on this called Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language.  Her book actually is really interesting (I highly recommend it) and covers some of what I'm going to be talking about today. In the first section, she compares the process of learning literacy to be similar to learning how to talk solely through exposure to formal writing like speeches, screenplays, audiobooks, etc. You miss all the nuances of informal speaking. Well, the same is true for written language. Before the Internet, informal writing was extremely hard to come by and even harder to study; even letters, postcards, secretive notes and the like were still written fairly formally because there were no mass text-based communication practices. Now, we have this vast intangible library of infinite knowledge and human interactions, making the necessity of informal writing more prominent. As such, internet users, especially people from my generation, have evolved a subset of written English to better express connotative meaning through the use, abuse, and misuse of capitalization, spacing, spelling, punctuation, incomplete sentences, and more. Let me show you a little of what I mean.

Capitalization

Capitalization is a common convention used to convey emphasis, although which type of emphasis that is changes based on how the capitalization is used.

Random Capitalization is meant to grab Attention and express that Something is Very Important or should be Stressed by Your Inner Voice when reading.

ALL CAPS IS MEANT TO SIGNIFY A VAST INCREASE IN VOLUME, THOUGH IT IS OFTEN INTERPRETED AS SHOUTING. THIS IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.

a crescENDO IS MEANT TO SPECIFY VOLUME AND/OR IMPORTance for one segment. It is often used to EXPRESS GROWING EXCITEMENT!

CaPiTaLiZiNG a RanDoM AsSoRTmEnT oF LetTerS ConVEyS SaRcAsM oR a MOcKinG TonE.

I cannot really articulate why but this, thIS, tHIS, and THIS are all different. This is called Varied Capitalization and can apply to any word, though I most often see and use it with articles.

not capitalizing anything in a sentence is an excellent way to express a monotone voice that seems very apathetic towards everything and everyone. "oh look. john and i went to the store. how exciting."

Spacing

Spacing Conventions are less common, and ultimately there is only one that I find noteworthy. Spacing out letters in a word like r e a l l y conveys that the word is significant. It takes up more space than really and thus needs to be stressed. It is also important to note that this convention is often coupled with full capitalization. There is a significant difference between "I am really hungry" and "I and r e a l l y hungry" and "I am R E A L L Y Hungry"

Spelling

Spelling, like Spacing, is less varied than some of these other conventions. The most common spelling convention you are likely to encounter is the Intentional Misspell. This is used to express one of two things; you can discern which by the context of the rest of the message. It can be used to display excitement. The misspell conveys a kind of excitement that interferes with dexterity, like how your hands shake after a jump scare: "gyus I just swa A Quiet Place  an d it s one f thr svsriest movis I've ever seen." The other emotion the Intentional Misspell can convey is much more subtle and complicated. It is the sense of false apathy. it is nit uncommun to putf a typo in everyr other werd or so to shwo yu don't realy give a fukc but yiu actually do. This is much harder to discern and your best bet on understanding this half of the convention is context clues.

Punctuation and Lack Thereof

Punctuation is, in my opinion, the best, most diverse option for conveying a specific kind of tone. There's a lot to cover here, so I will do my best to keep it brief.

A full stop is a short sentence with a period. It is meant to be read in a scolding tone. The usage of this is especially important in text message and chatroom settings because you can signify the end of a sentence by sending the message. A good rule of thumb for the tone is that the shorter the message, the more scolding the tone.

Putting. A. Period. Between. Words. Conveys. That. The. Matter. At. Hand. Must. Be. Taken. Seriously. This is simply the act of emphasizing each word with a full stop.

not having any punctuation or capitalization at all makes for a very fluid reading experience yes the sentences can get mixed up but those who read and write this way regularly can discern separate trains of thought if you've noticed the lack of capitalization you may recognize one of the earlier discussed conventions it is important to note however that the monotone voice of that convention disappears with the punctuation

Question marks now signify an upturn in the voicing of a statement rather than forcing something to be a question. now you may be asking yourself "why would they do this." The only answer I have for you is "it just seems right?" the upturn signifies a tentative statement while the flat delivery of the question signifies frustration or bafflement.

Punctuation Frequency is meant to signify the amount of severity accompanying the statement. This is exclusively used with question marks and exclamation marks. A common example is extending the simple “what?” to “what???????” Notice the difference? The same thing can be done with exclamation points. Note the increased excitement between “The baby was born today!” and “The babe was born today!!!!!!!!!!!” These, of course, can be amplified even further by incorporating some of the other conventions we’ve discussed previously.

Exclusive Punctuation is a convention most commonly found in messaging systems, but it is still important. “???” is an expression of pure confusion. If you were to receive this message, that whatever you sent the person prior has left them amazed, confused, flabbergasted, awe-struck, bewildered, and more. On the other hand “!!!” is an expression of pure excitement and glee. The best description I’ve seen for this is that it is a noise of happiness.

While there are dozens more grammatical conventions, these are the primary ones that a vast majority of people will use. It is time to move on.

Ellipses

Yes. This is punctuation. But it elicits its own category. Ellipses are great tools for signifying that there is more to this statement than meets the eye. However, there are now multiple types of ellipses that have different meanings.

Periodic Ellipses or Hard Ellipses are just that. Hard. Say I were to text someone “Hey can we talk after class...” The ellipsis generates a cold tone that has some worrying connotations. Something important to note here is that the length of the ellipsis can signify severity, though after a certain point it becomes superfluous and silly. The only friendly usage of a Hard Ellipsis is the Two-Dot Ellipsis. “Hey can we talk after class..” is far far less sinister than “Hey can we talk after class…”

Commatic Ellipses or Soft Ellipses are just that. Soft. Instead of being composed of periods, these ellipses are composed of commas and have a vastly different meaning. These are meant to convey either worrying or flirtatious tones. To go back to our previous example, “Hey can we talk after class,,,,,” is going to be read in a flirtatious manner. However, “Hey can we talk after class,” is going to be read worryingly.  The trick to discerning the different tones is the length of the ellipsis. Three commas or less conveys a worrisome tone, whereas five or more conveys a flirtatious tone.

Sentence Structure

Look! We’re almost done! There are many people who will play with sentence structure to convey meaning but the most widespread practice is the Incomplete Sentence. This one is actually fairly straightforward. Leaving a sentence incomplete expresses exhaustion (either emotional or physical) and adds a sense of trailing off in the speakers voice. I mean, have you ever started a sentence and then just

Noun/Verb Dichotomy

Ok last one. This one is also pretty straight forward, though still quite complex. The Noun/Verb Dichotomy is simple the act of using a noun in place of a verb to get your point across. For example, a more expressive (and in my opinion more accurate) way to say “I like to get a midnight snack at 2 in the morning” would be “I like to velociraptor around my house at 2 in the morning.” The second conjures such a specific image that it can more concisely convey the actions and emotions being done. The possibilities are endless. This opens up the door for someone to sentence how they want. Although many people will get a headache and want to clothesline into a wall. These all make sense to a native speaker of this kind of english because, while our brains do brain logically, english doesnt logic englishly so the brain brains by itself to logic the english!

So that is my mini-lesson on Internet English. please remember I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what’s changed.

[uncontrollable-entpness]

The ENTP Cognitive Functions

(NeTi) ENTP 

There are many great websites, books, and videos on the internet to help people understand their cognitive functions for any Myers-Briggs type. As a fellow ENTP, I am here to relay any of the information that I have found and put it in a way that I understand so that others may be capable to gain some insight and knowledge to formulate a general understanding or spark questioning within my conclusions. 

The Myers-Briggs divides the cognitive functions and uses them to identify with their primary function(s) according to each individual. It’s great to know about cognitive functions because you get an in-depth understanding about your personality type and how it breaks down. 

Simply put, the MBTI is the tip of the iceberg. The 4 letters which identify you as an individual are the strongest/prominent functions. As an ENTP, the traits that prevail are Extroversion, iNtuition, Thinking, and Perceiving. Cognitive functions that apply to the ENTP:

Dominant Ne | Extraverted Intuition 

Auxiliary Ti | Introverted Thinking 

Tertiary Fe | Extraverted Feeling 

Inferior Si | Introverted Sensing

According to Carl Jung, there are 8 Jungian Cognitive Functions. Each function is described as either extroverted or introverted. For each personality, these functions are stacked according to their strength or level of consciousness. With the ENTP, the dominant function is extraverted intuition. Dominant function identifies an individual’s strength and/or purpose. Activities that stimulate the dominant function are what fuel roles that satisfy a type. Auxiliary function is the supporting role that assists the dominant function. For an ENTP it is introverted thinking. The lower end of the stack are the tertiary and inferior functions that are least prominent (and most likely least developed). In this case, it is extraverted feeling and introverted sensing. All functions come with high benefits when balanced and reached maturity. 

My input towards how accurate Jung was able to encapsulate human complexity is that (personally) I don’t use the functions or types to place people in a box. They are best used as framework to understand people better in a very “broad” manner. If I were to give anyone advice (as unsolicited as it is), is to remember that if you want to know someone, just flat-out begin getting to know them as an individual. The MBTI and cognitive functions are practical when learning to understand oneself. And only supplementary when learning how a person interacts with their inner and external world, and bringing awareness to the communication processes and styles of people. 

Here is one thing I liked from an article on Thought Catalogue:

“ Understanding cognitive functions is imperative to understanding type. The four-letter dichotomies cannot possibly explain the complexity of our personalities – we are all thinkers, feelers, sensors and intuitives in various situations. The cognitive functions allow us to understand when we use each function and how it impacts our decision-making process.“ - Heidi Priebe

How To Self-Type?

If you’re taking a test online and it applies to you with 100% accuracy, great! However, if you are skeptical and are willing to dedicate time, I suggest by beginning with reading about all 8 cognitive functions. You are the only one that knows yourself best, so having someone else type you can sometimes (and often does) lead to mistyping. Identify the functions you resonate most with and try your best to organize/order them. Easier said than done for some people. 

The Attitudes | Extraversion & Introversion

The indicator of “e” or “i” signifies the effect on a function (Jung). It is also the preference in which a person has over their situational placement (MBTI). 

The ENTP extroversion is commonly described to be closest to the border of introversion in comparison to other extroverted types. Among the extroverts, an ENTP has strong capabilities to communicate easily and maintain conversational depth due to a prominent Ne (extroverted intuition). Having a dominant Ne associates with quick wit and ease of articulation. However, Ne also requires a high demand of processing in the mind. It is also followed with Ti as an auxiliary function which is regarded as significantly introverted. 

So you have one of the least extroverted functions (of the extroverted ones) and the most introverted functions (of the introverted ones) as the top two. Does that make any sense (?). There is a high demand of a rich inner-world, but the capability to articulate it when necessary/preferred. 

ENTPs are very engaged in conversation that is stimulating to their interests but are also easily capable of fluidly transitioning into conversations that aren’t of their expertise.

*the following two paragraphs are coming from personal experience*

As an ENTP, the best way I can justify the introverted extrovert dynamic is that when I am in demand for intellectual stimulation, I easily devote my time to spewing out ideas and exploring logic, theory, and philosophy of other human beings. Whereas, when I demand time for the self, I’d much rather spend time alone. This can vary from individuals. But at its core, an ENTP has very vivid borders for our extroversion that prevent getting into the inner world which remain very tight knit. So there's this weird dynamic as coming off as if we are open books, but in actuality . . . the words printed on that book are either encrypted or full of riddles. This is also dependent on the scenario and individuals in which we are conversing with. 

In summary, ENTPs are extroverted to the degree that it is fulfilling when is driven by a purpose. An ENTP will converse when necessary. That necessity is defined differently to each ENTP which is why I think we’re also some of the most complicated types. People see us as mindlessly argumentative, which can be confusing to us when we recognize our true intentions are to figure out and understand just exactly what another person means with their words. 

The Brain Process | Perceiving & Judging

The gray-matter’s method to the madness is characterized by its form of taking information and making decisions; that in which is first perceived then judged. Knowing that there are 8 functions, they are comprised of 4 varying ways to perceive and 4 different ways to judge. To understand the 8 functions is to understand the 16 types.  

ENTPs have a “P” (taking in information) preference when encountering the outer world. It is a preference that would much rather use spontaneity as opposed to order (which is a “J” function). With the outer world, an ENTP likes to understand it as opposed to establishing order. 

Internally, the world of an ENTP could possibly be quite different. Where it has the possibility of taking on the orderly nature of the “J” preference. Bear in mind, judging is referred to making decisions as opposed to placing things under scrutiny/being judgemental. 

The Perceiving Functions | Intuition & Sensing

Ne (dominant)

Si (inferior)

The dominant function of the ENTP is extraverted iNtuition which is a perceiving function. Those with a dominant Ne are loaded with ideas. iNtuition is often associated with looking into the future and developing multiple ideas/pathways in which we can reach an end-goal. These ideas can be reached/developed quite rapidly. There is some struggle with having to deal with details due to interest in the “bigger picture”. However, the Ne is really good at making connections and interlinking information between people and events. 

The least developed function is introverted Sensing. For those with dominant Si, it is good at applying “action”. The ENTP is commonly known for being terrible at time management and dedication to projects due to an underdeveloped Si. Because the NeTi is a stack of the never-ending thirst for knowledge, the Si often gets disregarded and forgotten. As an ENTP matures and develops their Si, projects are more likely to be brought to fruition and completion. The Si is also referred to memory recollection. Si compares real-time experiences to past ones that can remind the ENTP what was relatively good or bad/ what produced “x” outcome. Due to its inferior placement, the ENTP forgets it. I often catch myself after screwing up and realizing my mistakes or inconsistencies could be solved by “simple solutions”. My favorite reddit referenced Si as “taking care of your shit; the function”

The Judging Functions | Thinking & Feeling

Ti (auxiliary)

Fe (tertiary)

The auxiliary function of the ENTP is introverted Thinking. ENTPs strive for intellectual stimulation and knowledge. While ideas are processed at Ne, the Ti kicks in and analyzes, rationalizes, and elaborates on those complex hypothesis. Ti likes to get clear and logical. This isn’t to say that ENTPs are emotionless, however . . . it is important for an ENTP to have an objective understanding of things within their focus. 

Tertiary function Fe kicks in when socializing. Backed by pure logic and drive for knowledge, Fe is the thrill of sharing and exploring those observations made by an ENTP. Fe is what gives the ENTP their charm in communication. Fe knows how to use knowledge to fuel humanitarian/philanthropic causes. ENTP Fe is like “Hey! I’ve got ideas and I would like to share them”. 

The ENTP Shadow Functions 

It has been stated (sources unknown) that an individual cannot develop all 8 functions. There are 4 conscious functions (2 highly or moderately developed and 2 which still run but aren’t as primary). Shadow functions are the ones which aren’t within the spotlight. When brought up, can cause trouble/turmoil/issues particularly when stressed or induce stress. 

However. . . I have been working on this blog posts for 3-ish hours and have come to the conclusion that this is ample information for a post. In true ENTP nature, I am off to go work on something else haha. Thank you! 

[ill-be-istj-if-no-one-else-is]

hii! so i was typed an infj, both by cognitive functions tests, personality tests, and the 16 personalities thingy. my enneagram is 6. so because the whole stigma around the mistypings of infj so i get really unsure of my type a lot. no other type resonates with me more but im not the calm, collected version infj’s are made out to be. as my best self i am chaotic, and excited, making no sense at all and being free. i am also not as morally righteous as infjs seem to be, however i used to be more

           chaotic infj back again. i do see myself being easily manipulated by people with npd and such and can also see myself using my NiFe to manipulate others sometimes without even noticing. i also see myself adjusting to those around me to make them the most comfortable, if they need someone shy or outgoing etc. however, because of the N preference in the community i feel i might be mistyped there, when i am in fact an s. i love ideas and big abstract themes such as morality, the nova effect 2/infj            

3/infj politics, mbti, etc but while still in highschool i see myself just wanting facts and facts and no abstract ideas and anytime there is not a definite answer i get anxious. this could be due to the competitive nature of my school and my perfectionism or when i get into an NiTi loop but i also wanted your opinion. i am very self aware and self reflective, hence why i can’t seem to stop doubting who i am, and i know thats a trait of infjs. i also resonate a lot with andrew garfield who is            

4/infj who is an infamous infp and i know im not as idealist as i used to be with politics but i still don’t think im as free flowing as an infp because i don’t revel in being different i hate it. thanks for listening and doing what you do and if you have any thoughts i would really like to hear them            

5/infj, also im sorry about using Ni and Fe and Ti and all those i forgot they were in ur faq and thats normally how i talk about mbti and i also know i used very average descriptions like morally righteous and stuff which is also in ur faq eek, im sorry i tried my best its hard to describe yourself             

--------------------------------

Hi anon,

Just to get it out of the way, I don’t have a typing for this and my advice is going to be what it is for many high schoolers who have difficulty describing themselves, which is wait until you’ve developed more as a person. It’s always hard to describe yourself, but it’s much harder when many of your choices are made for you and you’re still very much in the midst of figuring out who you are.

A few things to consider when retyping yourself in the future: first, tests are garbage. They type essentially everyone who shows mild curiosity about the world as an intuitive, anyone who isn’t extremely extroverted as an introvert, and reduce the valid differences between judgers and perceivers to neat/messy. I do find they’re often kind of okay on feeling vs. thinking (in the dichotomy sense - they can’t tell apart Fi from Fe), but that’s also something that in many cases I find relatively easy to tell. Anyway, the only thing I’d consider taking away from this is that you’re probably a feeler, and the information you provided seems to back that up.

Second, I’m not sure what your sources are for INFJ behavior. The fact is because this type is so commonly over typed, you can hear arguments for basically everything since people of all types think they’re INFJs and even the same descriptions often contradict, and not in a Walt Whitman kind of way but in a “wow you did not think this through” kind of way. I mean, what kind of moral person prides themselves on the door slam, an immature and stupid thing to do*? So I would just ignore all of those and try to type yourself, as a person, based on the functions.

For manipulations; first, how many people do you know with NPD? Like, actually diagnosed? I’m not saying it’s impossible you’ve run into them but I don’t think I’ve ever run into someone personally with an actual APD or NPD diagnosis that I knew of. Second, what specifically do you mean by manipulation? I find it’s an area that gets weirdly defined on Tumblr and sometimes people use it to refer to like, normally asking people to do things for you which is just being a person. Manipulation has an implication of underhanded tactics.

For liking philosophical ideas: I find most intelligent people do. Intuition vs. Sensing isn’t a matter of liking philosophical ideas in an academic/leisure setting; it’s more specifically about how you interact with them in your actual daily life when you’re not in school or spending your free time. I’m a physicist, like, as my job, and I love physics, and I was drawn to physics by a lot of cool theoretical ideas which I still find interesting - but I have absolutely no desire to be a theoretical physicist professionally. So I have a question, and a caveat here: first, would you be happy spending your life pondering philosophical or theoretical questions as a primary thing that you do? And for the caveat: in high school I absolutely would have said yes, and as a junior in college I realized the answer was actually a strong No, which is yet another reason why I think waiting to type yourself until you’re older is often a very good idea. (Note: this is not a perfect sensing/intuition question by any means anyway - I suspect a lot of ENTJs would answer No here because of their dominant Te. But it’s a valuable question to have in mind when typing yourself.)

I think being a little older will also shed whether you want guidance because you’re a sensor or guidance because of the general nature of high school and academic pressures, and whether you want to fit in because you have Fe or because of the general nature of high school. It’s worth noting that if you’re confident in a 6 core enneagram, that might be a factor whether you use high Fe or high Fi.

I don’t place a lot of value on who you relate to; not only do I not personally know Andrew Garfield’s type I think part of the nature of celebrity (and/or fictional characters) is projecting a persona that can appeal to a lot of people, and the reasons we relate to people often are about shared experience or a shared opinion about something important to us. We can relate to people of different types quite easily - which is good - but it means it’s not really a typing tool.

And finally I guess to clarify - the reason I ask people not to use MBTI terms in asking questions isn’t because I dislike it for its own sake - it’s because it makes it pretty much impossible for me to draw my own conclusions. Typing over the internet is always a challenge because I’m relying on someone’s own unintentionally cherry-picked understanding of their personality, rather than my observation, but when they use functions to describe what they do it, I don’t even know what they’re trying to say because there’s an additional layer of uncertainty based on whether their understanding of Fe (for example) is the same as mine and so I have nothing to go on and won’t be able to answer. Believe me, if the FAQ was about things I dislike rather than things I need to type well I would just be deleting every question in which someone ended a sentence with ‘lol’.

So: no idea on type other than feeler, but I hope the above gives you an idea of what to look for in the future, with the understanding that you might not be able to type yourself accurately for a while, and that’s fine.

*as always I make an exception if you’re cutting off ties with an abuser but a lot of the door slam descriptions aren’t “I stopped talking to my abuser and didn’t tell them why because it would put me in danger,” but rather “this person BETRAYED MY CONFIDENCES and I cannot ever forgive them, they have pushed me too far this time and I have given all of myself, but I shan’t be hurt again, I cannot bear it” and it’s all extremely amateur-production-of-a-Bronte-novel and melodramatic and very silly.

[alyblacklist]

Transcript of James Spader interview with CNN - March 1, 2019

Source / Audio available here

AMANPOUR: And now, we're going to turn to an actor who's played some eccentric characters in his time. James Spader revels in offbeat like the award-winning cult hit of its time, "Sex, Lies and Videotape." And also, mainstream blockbusters like "The Avengers."  He currently stars in a political thriller called "The Blacklist." As one of the FBI's most wanted fugitives turned informant. This series has bagged him two Golden Globe nominations and the show has gathered a huge global following. Our Hari Sreenivasan spoke to the Hollywood star just recently. HARI SREENIVASAN, CONTRIBUTOR: So, for our viewers who have not watched the show, what's "The Blacklist" about? JAMES SPADER, ACTOR, "THE BLACKLIST": In the first episode, a man who was on the FBI's most. wanted list gives himself up to an assistant director of the FBI. They take him into custody. He's been wanted in many different countries and so on so forth and considered armed and dangerous. And he said that he wants to make a deal with the FBI. SREENIVASAN: He was an informant now? SPADER: Of sorts. He is steering them towards people that they've never heard of and that they aren't even aware are out there. SREENIVASAN: In this season, there's a pretty significant plot twist and that his kind of immunity is compromised. He is now -- SPADER: Yes. SREENIVASAN: -- brought to justice or in the process of being brought to justice. We have a clip. Let's take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SPADER: Officer Baldwin asked for some identification and I gave him a false ID so magnificent even I started to believe my name is George Murphy.  He said I looked around nervously. But the truth is, I made fun of the man. I refused to give him the respect he somehow believed he deserved.  It happens. I get impatient, I make a comment I might regret. It's one of my biggest issues in therapy along with some residual anxiety from childhood and a sexual fascination I'd prefer to discuss in chambers. (END VIDEO CLIP) SREENIVASAN: That sort of quintessentially him. I mean, there's a certain irreverence to everything he does, it doesn't matter that his sort of life is on the line. In this case, he still jokes. SPADER: He's very confident. SREENIVASAN: Is that easier to play over five season, six seasons that you get to know a character a little bit better? SPADER: I was looking for something that was very fluid in terms of tone. So, I was successful, I think, in finding that in that this is a show that has at -- in a different -- by turns, very, very emotional, very funny, very intense, sometimes disturbing or startling. And sometimes a lot of those things all at the same time. And I wanted a character who I would still, after a period of time, if the show continued to run, a character that was enigmatic enough to me that I would still be surprised by him over time. SREENIVASAN: Yes. SPADER: And I'd still be curious about him over time. I remember when I first read the very first episode, pilots, you know, by the end of the story, you knew less about him than you knew at the beginning really. Anything you learn about him just poses more questions. And so, I knew that this was a character that would have a certain amount of staying power for me, at least -- SREENIVASAN: Yes. SPADER: -- in terms of curiosity. SREENIVASAN: Are you surprised that it's doing so well? I mean, everybody hopes that the project that they're working on succeeds. Here you are average of 7 million plus people watching, six seasons into it. SPADER: I responded to the material and responded to this character and that's all I have as a gay really is what my opinion of it is and I was intrigued by the sort of marriage between a sort of method -- sort of serialized sort of mythology to the show, married with the procedural. But I have no idea. I mean, I really have never been very good at that part of this business. I'm pretty selfish in terms of my reasons for taking things and they really -- it rarely has anything to do with what a response by it may be from -- for others or from others. But I -- SREENIVASAN: What does it have to do with? SPADER: It really has to do with my interest in the material in the world that the story lives in. If it's something that I'm interested in exploring, then I'll do it. SREENIVASAN: You know, this year, you've also, in the episodes, had story lines that have talked about and what is the meaning of truth, the internet is influencing so many things, conspiracy theories, and these are topics that America is challenged with right now. I'm assuming this is an intentional act from the writers, yourself. SPADER: I mean, listen, there's no question that, you know, one's life seeps in and the world around you is -- a show is a sponge to a certain degree, in terms of that. But it's interesting that there's a big storyline that's going on right now and -- on the show that the writers were working on long before it became a news item.  And the same thing would happen on another show that I worked with for a long time, "Boston Legal," where we really weren't ripping from the headlines. SREENIVASAN: Yes. SPADER: And yet, again and again, I get a script and we'd be working on something and it became -- by the time it aired, it was timely. SREENIVASAN: You know, given that you've worked at "The Practice," "Boston Legal," do shows with multiple hit seasons, do they get better over time? Because I've heard from some people that the first couple of seasons are really where everybody just got their nose to the grindstone, third season, fourth season, now the money is starting to roll in, changes the dynamic a little bit? SPADER: There are a lot of things that can be deciding factors in terms of how something changes and develops over time. Now, for instance, "The practice," I came in on the last season. I think was the eighth season of that show. And I was brought in because six cast members had been let go.  And what had happened was, the show had been on, it was in its eighth season. The ratings -- I don't think the ratings were as strong as they might have been in the past. And the show got picked up by the network for another season and they had had their licensing fee cut in half.  So, David Kelly felt he couldn't make the show, the quality. So, he had a choice, he could either continue with the show at a much-reduced licensing fee, in which case he'd have to fire people or he could end the show and, by that time, by an eighth season, the amount of people who are making their living on a television show is enormous. SREENIVASAN: Right. SPADER: And he decided to keep those people employed for another year. And so, he fired six actors. And I met with him and he said, "I'd like to have you come in and be on the show." And he basically was burning this house down that he built. And that's what that character was doing. But then, halfway through the season, the network came and said, "Well, how about another series with this same character, you know." SREENIVASAN: And you get a spin off? SPADER: Yes. So, all of a sudden, I did "Boston Legal." But here you have -- I was brought in as a destructive force on "The Practice." Now, how do you construct a series around, you know, a -- you know, just to -- around the cat and a hat -- SREENIVASAN: Yes. SPADER: -- which is what David conceived of when he thought of that character. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SPADER: And you don't even know who I am. You do have the slightest idea who I am. Am I -- should I -- am I supposed to recount all the points of my life leading up to this moment and then -- and just hope that it's coherent, that it makes some sort of sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me. You know, I was there. You know, I don't have the slightest idea who I am and I -- I'm supposed to be able to explain it to you. And why? Tell -- no. You tell -- tell me why? Why do I have to explain myself to you? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because maybe I can help you. (END VIDEO CLIP) SREENIVASAN: When I look back at these characters, clearly, it's someone who doesn't like himself in some ways, at least, according to some of the other characters. In this show, "Blacklist," recently, there has been a shrink that kind of looks at your deepest darkest corners and says, you know, your fear is that you're an impostor.You go all the way back to Steff, a horrible character back in "Pretty in Pink" and the other characters are telling you that it's really -- that your floating is some of the stuff that's driving you. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SPADER: Listen, I'm getting really bored with this conversation, all right. You know, if she wants your little piece low-grade -- take it, you know. But if you do, you're not going to have a friend. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If that's right? SPADER: Yes, that's right. (END VIDEO CLIP) SREENIVASAN: Are you drawn to this sort of thing? SPADER: I don't believe that to be the case. SREENIVASAN: You're good at it. SPADER: I just don't know if that's really what it is that's driving. I don't know whether that really what was driving Alan Shore and I'm not convinced that's what is driving Reddington. I don't know how much merit I give to that. SREENIVASAN: OK. You look for conflict in characters, because they're -- SPADER: I do. SREENIVASAN: Yes? SPADER: I do. SREENIVASAN: Is it -- are they more fun to play? SPADER: Yes. It is that that is still the most compelling aspect of the character in "Blacklist" is that is the dichotomy that I find and the conflict that I find in him all the time. And by the way, I was very spoiled and that -- you know, it's -- listen, it's -- to a certain degree, it's my design. I mean, that's also what I found most compelling about that kind -- other character that we're talking about, you know, Alan Shore, is the dichotomy in him.  And this man, Raymond Reddington, who is so ruthless and brutal at times, who is incredibly vulnerable and thoughtful and has such an understanding for the quality of life and the beauty of life and the value of life and what would be the thing that would teach him that and give him such an incredible appreciation for life is that he's so familiar with the loss of life. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) [13:30:14] SPADER: All those years I spent worrying about you, fancying myself your guardian angel, I should have taken one look at you and known you'd be fine.   (END VIDEO CLIP) SPADER: And he's so familiar with the taking of life. And I think that has given him a -- a very keen sensibility for the cost of loss of life.   SREENIVASAN: Uh-huh.   SPADER: You know, it's a strange thing to play, but somebody who has completely come to terms with the end of his life at some point. And yet - SREENIVASAN: Fully present -- SPADER: Fully present and fearless, in a way. I think his comfort with his own mortality probably gives him great confidence, no matter what the hell's on the other side of a door that he might be walking through.   SREENIVASAN: So I've read that you're detail-oriented to a point of obsessive-compulsive. Is that accurate? SPADER: I -- I think I'm in a job that is -- that's conducive to that disorder, if you want, for lack of a better term. I've only had it been helpful for me as an actor, having a compulsion toward attention to detail or a compulsive attention to detail.   SREENIVASAN: Are you still learning as an actor? SPADER: Yes.   SREENIVASAN: What are you learning now that you maybe didn't figure out in the last 20 years -- SPADER: The same crap I was learning at the very beginning. Sometimes it's as simple as to slow down a little bit, and sometimes it's as simple as speeding up a little bit. Sometimes the best direction in the world is do it quicker or do it slower. You know what I mean? It's -- SREENIVASAN: Yes. This is where you came to find your future in acting. What, did you drop out of high school? SPADER: I did. Not a future in acting. I really -- SREENIVASAN: Just to find your future? SPADER: New York has always represented a very -- very, very important part of my life. It was the place that I left home to move to.   SREENIVASAN: You opted into this.   SPADER: This is what I wanted. I -- I loved this city, and I still do. I still -- I'm really one of those people who -- I don't really need to leave New York very much. Like I love to travel. I do love to travel, and I know there are people that, oh, well, you know, the city's only bearable if you can get the hell out of it. I don't agree with that. I love the city to live in.  I'm one of -- I really truly believe that New York is the most wonderful place on earth to live and a terrible place to visit. It's actually much better for living.  You can actually live a very calm and relaxed life here, because you don't feel like you have to fit everything in. You come here and visit, and it's like you're exhausted by it. And therefore, people perceive the city as an exhausting place to be. And I don't find it that way. I find a calm in the center of this chaos.   SREENIVASAN: James Spader, thanks so much.   SPADER: Thank you. 

[wellntruly]

I CATAPULT myself onto your internet couch, sending all and sundry flying. I have many questions. How on earth do you watch so many movies? How did you manage the dichotomy of an 1800's Gay Uncle trapped inside a lovely lady in modern times? What hobby do you sometimes see going around and be like I Should Do The Thing and then never actually Do The Thing (or is that just me?) What do you look for in a Fandom Community? Do you have any Mindless Background Shows or just Aesthetic Wunderkinds?

YESS MY INTERNET COUCH HOUSES AGAIN ITS ORIGINAL RESIDENT :D

- This is the choice I have made for my time, that’s pretty much it! Things always get a little busy there at the turn of the year as the studios kindly DUMP everything on us the closer we get to awards season because they believe strongly in that recency effect (not entirely without reason), but on average I’m only watching about 3 a month I think? Honestly part of the reason I watch more movies than TV shows is that in total it takes up waaaaayyy less time. I can watch maybe four movies in half the time it would take me to watch one 13 episode TV season.

- Haaahahahaa, okay for the record I recently mentioned to rainbowrites that I was having someone over for tea, and then had to explain that my aesthetic/lifestyle is basically your bachelor English uncle who gets overexcited about his obscure research. Yeah I don’t know that’s kinda just….the vibe! My best friend and I have talked about how our dream pace would be to basically just be Professor Perlman, like oh looks like a new batch of slides of ancient statues has arrived, guess we’ll just leisurely delve into these for like a week in between having people over for freshly squeezed juice.

- I’ve thought before that I should get back into knitting. My high school biology teacher taught me how to knit, which was charming as he was in his late 30s, a he, and a scientist, none of those things really befitting your classic idea of “a knitter”

- I look for you! :) No but pretty much! Maybe this is because I was not anywhere near ANY online fan community until I was 23, but general fandom isn’t my speed. I just like chatting about shows with a few funny folks who Get It, and I *loved* when the little Star Trek Community guided me through the whole dang franchise with such thoughtfulness and joy, and yeah I really like seeing if I can write down my TV thoughts & ideas in a way that other people will enjoy reading and sometimes write me little messages like “oh my gosh I thought that tooooo” and it’s like ahh same hat!!! And some of the fan art is GREAT and so stunning. But honestly, you’ll allow me to get mean for a minute, I find most of fandom to be just bad takes and mediocre pornography. The bad takes offend me much more. Ooo some saltiness!

- I have never put a TV show on in the background in my life. If I’m watching a thing I am watching a thing. This is why I only watch a handful of shows a year, because they’re gonna get my full attention so they better be worth it! I would say that I watch things besides just Aesthetic Wunderkinds though, only…..well my favorite trashy shows are trashy aesthetic shows….and my favorite non-aesthetic shows are still wunderkinds….okay maybe you got me. Let’s say Aesthetic/Wunderkinds. YEAH ALRIGHT.

~Come crash on my internet couch~

[derrickheyward-blog]

What Is A Music Genre?

This can be a 'list of digital music genres', consisting of genres of electronic music , primarily created with digital musical devices or electronic music technology A distinction has been made between sound produced using electromechanical means and that produced utilizing electronic expertise. Na, come on. Tremendous, back to Scandinavia we go. Skwee is, at worst, simplistic, however, at its best, sexy as hell. It's a weird dichotomy of nerdy eight-bit videogame sounds playing Kashif-model boogie basslines. It sounds like artists giving a shit and never giving a shit at the similar time. It may solely have occurred in the mid-00s when digital music was present process a huge makeover. It's fairly cool. Tyler then seems to be at Hip Hop influenced EDM, similar to Entice, and the way it has roots in Hip Hop and how it has spread to different digital and rap genres as properly. Freestyle music is born with Shannon's "Let the Music Play" (though some say it was born with Afrika Bambaataa & The Soul Sonic Pressure's "Planet Rock"). Shannon's electro record has Latin percussion and a heavy syncopated drumbeat that distinguishes her from the other electro-funk artists. Artists corresponding to Nu Shooz, Lisa Lisa & The Cult Jam, Nayobe, T.Okay.A., Alisha, Debbie Deb, Collage, Expose, George Lamond, and Stevie B. define the sound. The Falls Music & Arts Festival is one of the greatest, longest working, boutique music events in Australia. The pageant relies on European style occasions, featuring a various mixture of over 70 renowned bands, DJs and comedians from throughout Australia with over 20 worldwide acts. Positively a stable alternative for bringing in the new 12 months. The wonderful thing about house music in the '90s and '00s was that it was truly designed to make you need to dance All is nicely till the late noughties, kobynapier2614.hatenadiary.com when everyone decides that indie is rubbish. As there's so much awesome house music being made, dance becomes the new king of pop, and it's at this level that issues go improper: the mainstream becomes taken with house. Specifically, the sq.-friendly, center of the street European house music made by straight white dudes who talk at size about their clean-residing existence. The quality of Uncover Weekly's picks is so consistently good, it's kind of uncanny. After I received a number of glorious playlists in a row, I could not stop occupied with how Spotify had figured me out, together with 75 million different folks. Answering that query led me down the rabbit hole of how the system works within the first place—and how an algorithm can delve into the deeply subjective realm of music to predict the songs that can make my pulse race and my head nod. Music comes from everywhere, and so do the names we name it by. There's a longstanding cliche that solely the music enterprise needs style names - everybody else either likes it or they don't. That is, of course, bunk, as anyone who's heard sufficient folks trot out lines comparable to "I like all music apart from rap and nation" is aware. Not least because quite a lot of those genre names come from the artists themselves.

My favourite genre of music is traditional rock and different rock. I like this style because a few of the songs and bands encourage me and I can relate to some songs. My favourite bands are the Beatles and http://www.audio-transcoder.com Breaking Benjamin. Every time I feel down I get my iPod and www.goodreads.com begin listening to their music to get right again up. You can stereotype some individuals by music. For those who see a person with a cowboy hat, cowboy shirt, and cowboy boots you'll be able to tell that he listens to country music. Music is the very best thing in America. One other one in every of many, many vital blues songs that finally bought recorded as soon as the rock & roll era was underway, Smokestack Lightnin'" continues to function an vital piece of the pop-music vocabulary. I simply feel as if the people who hearken to rock are afraid to come out and admit they love rock music. Hell I positive am, I get anxious every time I inform those that I take heed to all genres in itself. Its sad that folks cannot take pleasure in this genre nowadays. It is higher than fashionable pop music any day of the week. Neil Younger once sang Rock n' roll can never die," however in response to Gene Simmons , it's already lifeless. The Kiss bassist recently made controversial remarks about Donald Sterling , immigration and melancholy (which he finally backed off from), and now the Kiss bassist has another enormous assertion to make: Rock is finally lifeless," Simmons declared in an interview with Esquire The death of rock was not a natural loss of life. Rock did not die of previous age. It was murdered," he added. But rock's killer wasn't the blurring of musical genres or lack of craftsmanship. Instead, Simmons blames file sharing and the fact that no one values music enough to pay you for it" for murdering rock n' roll. The Music Genres Record website covers many of the hottest types of children's music, we hope this turns into the definitive record of kids's music genres on the Internet, send an e-mail to add @ musicgenreslist dot com for those who really feel any childrens music genres are missing and we'll add to finish the music record. There isn't any copyright on the songs. Lots of of people songs from the 19th century have identified authors however have continued in oral custom to the purpose the place they're thought-about conventional for purposes of music publishing. This has become a lot less frequent because the 1940s. In the present day, nearly every folks track that's recorded is credited with an arranger.Music Style Classification is without doubt one of the many branches of Music Data Retrieval From here you may perform different tasks on musical data like beat monitoring, music technology, recommender techniques, observe separation and instrument recognition and so on. Music analysis is a diverse discipline and also an fascinating one. A music session by some means represents a moment for the consumer. Finding these moments and describing them is an attention-grabbing problem in the area of Data Science.MARTIN: In the event you're simply becoming a member of us, we're talking with musician and composer Jae Sinnett about the way forward for jazz. What does that say? How do you - how do you interpret what that means? Does it imply that it's a good news, dangerous news story? That individuals who understand and appreciate music are still searching for it out, or is it that there is simply obtained to be this ongoing fight to take care of house for jazz amid all the business pressures? They've at all times been there.

[peijia-blog]

Week 10: Social Gaming

So, what’s social gaming?

Social games are structured activities with contextual rules through which users can participate in each other. Social games must be multiplayer and have one or more of the following functions: turn-based, based on social platforms, to provide users with identity and freedom (Nick O’Neill,2008). Therefore, social games enable users to take turns and realizing the behavior of others in the game. Another most important element of social gaming is the social part. It is similar and different from multiplayer games in games like Call of Duty. Social games are of course strictly multiplayer games, but they use different ways to play multiplayer games. Social games are usually built around a more intimate interaction between players. Sharing items, evaluating a friend's trading compliments, and inviting new players to join are part of most social games. Usually social games are based on different type of social platforms such as facebook, Steam, Garena. In the context of social gaming, social platforms provide users with an identity and also can provide the backbone for simple forms of communication (such as notifications, etc).

Impact of Social gaming

One of the many themes raised during the Qutee study was the benefits of the game to society as a whole. In an online survey, players were asked what they thought was the main benefit of the game. More than 40% said gaming improves emotional well-being. If you think that one out of every five people in the US will experience mental health problems every year, it will be a serious benefit. This is in stark contrast to the general view that playing video games can lead to violence and other anti-social behavior. According to Qutee, 93% of players think this is wrong.Kevin Anderton,(2018). Another benefit is the formation of a strong friendship. About two-thirds of gamers claim that they met five friends while playing games, and 37% said they have done more. Playing games provides a great way to break the ice, get together, and spend time together. It leads to strong friendships, which is natural. Playing video games is associated with performance advantages and improvements in many visual and spatial tasks. By requiring players to practice games that extract spatial information from the screen, specific visual space skills and tasks that include these skills can be improved. The positive impact of video games on visual-space skills has been found in related research (eg, Green & Bavelier, 2003) and experimental studies (eg, Okagaki & Frensch, 1994). In many visual and spatial tasks, Garners has been found to outperform non gamers, exhibiting faster visual response times, improved target positioning and psychological rotation (Green & Bavelier, 2003; Achtman, Green, & Bavelier, 2008; Green & Bavelier, 2007). Experimental studies have shown that only 10 hours of video games can improve spatial attention and psychological rotation (Feng, Spence, & Pratt, 2007; Green & Bavelier, 2003). It's worth noting that most of the research that has found video games to influence visual space skills uses fast-paced video games that are often violent.This reminds people that video games don't fit the good or bad dichotomy - they have many effects that can have both positive and negative effects. Educational video games have been found to be effective teaching aids in a wide range of fields. Video games often reinforce student behavior, attract enough students to play games multiple times, provide clear goals, and need to be actively involved (Gentile and Gentile, 2008). Education video games have been successfully used to teach students some school subjects such as mathematics, reading and biology (Murphy, Penuel, Means, Korbak, & Whaley, 2001; Corbett, Koedinger, & Hadley, 2001). Employers also recognize the power of video games and combine games to teach the work skills employees need. For example, Volvo uses online games to train car salespeople (Entertainment Software Association, 2011b). Educational video games can also be used to explain health and encourage a healthier lifestyle. Many studies have shown that video games are an effective teaching tool to help young people understand health conditions such as cancer and diabetes (Brown et al., 1997; Kato, Cole, Bradlyn, & Pollock, 2008; Lieberman, 2001). These games can also bring behavioral changes.

In contrast, the findings reviewed in this chapter lead to the conclusion that social game effects are complex and better understood from multiple dimensions rather than good or bad dichotomy. The major impact of social games has been proven in many areas. Some of these effects are desired by parents, such as the impact of prosocial social games on empathy and help (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010). Other social game effects are worrisome to parents, such as the impact of violent video games on aggression (eg, Anderson & Dill, 2000), even a single game can have multiple effects on a person, some of which are harmful, some of which are beneficial (for example, a violent game that improves visual space function, but also increases the risk of physical attacks). More research is needed to increase our understanding of how prosocial sosial gaming can exert their influence on empathy and help to explore the impact of video games on attention and cognitive control and increase our understanding of the symptoms and consequences of game addiction. Given the large number of children and teens who play video games, increasing our understanding of the effects of positive and negative social gaming is a relevant research topic that is important for public policy debates, theoretical developments, and potential intervention strategies designed to increase positive impact and reduce the negative impact of playing social games.

References

Achtman, R, Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D 2018, Video games as a tool to train visual skills, Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 26,435-446.

Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., & Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries. Psychological Bulletin, 136,151-173.

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-790.

Brown, S. J., Lieberman, D. A., Gemeny, B. A., Fan, Y. C., Wilson, D. M., & Pasta, D. J. (1997). Educational video game for juvenile diabetes: Results of a controlled trial. Medical Informatics, 22(1), 77-89.

Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Hadley, VV. (2001). Cognitive tutors: From the research class-room to all classrooms. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Technology enhanced learning (pp. 235-263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Entertainment Software Association, 2011, Games: Improving education, viewed 23 May 2019, <http://www.theesa.com/games-inproving-what-matters/ESA_FS_education_2011.pdf>

Gentile, D. A., & Gentile, J. R. (2008). Video games as exemplary teachers: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37,127-141.

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature, 423,534-537.

Green, C. S.,& Bavelier, D.(2007).Action video game experience alters the spatial resolution of attention.Psychological Science, 18(1), 88-94.

Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2010). Effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,211-221

Kato, P.M., Cole, S. W., Bradlyn, A. S., & Pollock, B. H. (2008). A video game improves behavioral outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 122, 305-317.

Kevin Anderton,(2018).The Impact Of Gaming: A Benefit To Society [Infographic]

Nick O’Neill,(2008). What Exactly are Social Games? Available at: https://www.adweek.com/digital/social-games/

Peng, J., Spence, I., & Pratt, J. (2007). Playing an action video game reduces gender differences in -spatial cognition. Psychological Science, 18, 8.50-855.

Sim, T., Gentile, D. A., Bricolo, F., Serpelloni, G., & Gulamoydeen, F. (2012). A conceptual review of research on the pathological use of computers, video games, and the internet. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. DOI 10.1007/s11469-011-9369-7