#i think like. intellectually he's smart. tactically he's smart. if you have a problem that needs solving he can do it

[lord-squiggletits]

Still kind of sad/upset that IDW Optimus gets ignored as the dumb jock OP he is. I mean I know people just want the himbo good guy mainly but like. Do you want an Optimus who barely knows what the fuck he's doing. Do you want an Optimus who makes a preliminary plan but then goes "fuck it we ball" and freestyles the rest. Do you want an Optimus who canonically decided the best way to fight the government would be to literally fight his way into a Senate meeting and scream one of Megatron's speeches at them even as he's getting dragged away and it's only through the intervention of a Senator that he's even still alive?

IDW Optimus. You know you want to.

[abyss-seer]

GOT 7 BamBam general astrology read, with love life predictions 💚

On the occassion of birthday celebration of Kunpimook Bhuwakul, better known by his stage name BamBam from Got 7. I felt a nudge to do an astrological read. So here goes nothing for you guys.

His Sun is in Bharani nakshatra. His Venus is beautifully placed in this same Venusian Nakshatra as well. From internet, I found his timing was 10:25 am but who knows? Anyways finding love is always hard for this man, the sun being in conjunction with venus, is beautiful combo but takes away the patience, nurturance and given how close his sun and Venus are (in the same nakshatra) , bro's love life is always a fleeting one. Given how he has a mercury venus and sun conjuction in the same sign. Mercury keeps on fleeting, takes him from one flower to another. Given how the Venus is placed after Mercury, don't worry this man will settle down eventually but it requires true love. Or you will find him catching nectar everywhere. Now his spouse needs to be someone intellectually interesting and someone very powerful in a position of authority. Sun venus and Mercury conjunction gives a smart, efficient and authoritative spouse or lovers to a native. Some say mercury venus conjuction is a Laxmi Narayan Yog, Some say its a conjunction of multiple or open relationships or indicator of cheating. This conjuction is a huge indicator of LGBTQIA2S+ typa love story. So trust me when I say they can find a lover or a spouse who needs to be in authority position or just like them to lock their a$$ down 😉 Since Venus and Mercury conjunction aren't in the same nakshatra it isn't a Lakshmi Narayan Yog but the venus following the mercury is a good sign of loyalty. Relationships in his case would be more about fulfilling his personality then expressing his emotions as moon in Shatabhisha, talking about emotions being misunderstood or misconstrued in private life sometimes due to full exposure of emotions to the public and media. He can have a really hard time deciphering their emotional or inner mental state, mercury retrograde signifying problems in communication or thinking at times. Literally the light bulb meme. I think this person's love language ( given retro mercury conjuct venus) is hard to understand. Once they solve their communication issues, or stop overthinking their emotions, they might shut themselves off often. As moon in Shatabhisha is a very very private placement.

Given how he is ending his Sade sati phase plus going through a saturn return. This year might be the year where he starts recieving the reward for his hard work and the efforts he put 5 years from now. Pretty much a maturing phase, may face a lot of difficulties if lessons not learnt.

My personal fav might be the trine of mars and venus, with both mars and venus being in Venusian Nakshatra, a very passionate and beautiful individual, passionate about the things he loves and desires.

Atmakaraka is placed in Dhanishtha, famous for its entertaining qualities, a morally just person, a good placement to serve as a teacher in entertainment industry which I think he is. In Chuang Asia Season 2, He is a mentor of mamy contestants

So yeah Amatyakarka being in Venus talks about someone who has a good potential for teaching art and entertainment tactics to their students. Idk why I am channeling "Vicious vibes" but the Venus and Jupiter, that means the Atmakaraka and Amatyakarka are both in square in his chart, often talking about the difficulty one faces in when prioritising the traditional vs the modern practices of learning or teaching. If utilised and balanced properly, he can not only create new systems of learning and teaching but also identify those aspects in others. So pretty much someone who faces problems with the traditional ways especially when it comes to the expression of art.

Now let's talk about Rahu in Uttara Phalguni, if settling in one place forever was a dream, this placement takes the cake.

One of the interesting things I find about his chart is mercury being in Ashwini, the nakshatra of Ketu, and then saturn sitting on Revati, the nakshatra of mercury, and then that mercury retrograde it makes you wonder how come the planet of speech and communication being in detriment can result in a musician. I think this is where language difference, comes in, plus mercury retrograde can also signify a multi tasker big time!!!! Like not everyone can be a multi tasker, not everyone can speak so many different languages (inherently or from childhood or from young age, given how Ketu and the mercury in Ketu nakshatra's qualities comes through(inheritance or legacy) ,he has definitely gone through memory crisis or language crisis as a child, venus and sun , one signifying the liquid money other the legacy we will leave behind for next generations to come, mercury retrograde conjucting them talks about a lot more multitasking than an average person.

Mercury retrograde with Sun might make him look a bit more dumber than others, same can be said for his lovers. He might choose someone very similar to him, often overlooking the hard part of having a communication, often trying to find someone likening to himself and his personal goals and personality.

Sun Venus conjuction also gives a very purva Phalguni-esque feature, people might find this person very much child bearing oriented, they might fiercely adopt the idea of having kids or bearing a progeny. To many people's dislike, I would like to say, yes in this case, given how jupiter in Dhanishtha is squaring this venus in Bharani. This man might risk his own career's fate for tempting PDA's sorry not sorry, he's a freak, (mars venus trine) and he will show it regardless sometimes much to the dismay of his own morals and values. Sorry fans but the day this guy goes in a serious relationship, you will be crying with the PDA's he does with his spouse. Yup, and expect big announcements with drum roll for his children.

Channeled song for this read,

Shhhhh!!!!! Scandalous......

Anyways, I wanna shift my focus from Got 7 to other groups. Can you guys, please suggest me some kpop groups? I am planning on a girl group next. Any suggestions? Grateful for your interactions. Thank you so much. Take care bye👋🏻

[self-winding]

I've never been able to pick a favorite book. There are just too many. I have dozens of favorites. However, as it happens, I have a singular least favorite book. It's ISHMAEL, by Daniel Quinn.

Spoilers for ISHMAEL ahead.

This novel involves an initially intriguing and weird premise: a guy finds a mysterious ad in the paper, "teacher seeks pupil," and decides to answer it out of curiosity. The address is a mostly abandoned building inhabited by a talking gorilla, who placed the ad. Cool, let's see where this goes.

There's never a very thorough explanation given for how the gorilla learned to talk, he just kind of did. The rest of the novel is composed of a series of philosophical dialogs, which are very one-sided because the gorilla is the Smartest Person Ever and the guy is a fawning idiot who responds to everything with a brief strawman token resistance followed by, "omg!! Ishmael-senpai, you're right! My tiny head is swimming with the force of your wisdom! Please teach me more senpai!!!" It quickly becomes clear that Ishmael is the author in a gorilla suit. I don't mean that literally; that would actually have been hilarious. I mean that his job is to regurgitate the author's opinions and have them validated as amazing and world-changing.

So what's the philosophical thesis of this book? Humans had it all figured out when they were hunter-gatherers. The agrarian revolution was a mistake and humans have now become too powerful and arrogant and are destroying the planet with their greed and foolishness. Possibly this felt less cliched in the seventies, when the book was written (though it was not published until 1992), but even then I don't think it was new. The book pokes fun at/strawmans the "noble savage" myth and then goes right back to fully endorsing this concept, without calling it that. It uses this kind of rhetorical tactic a lot: "I am not arguing for X, that is silly and reductive. But I am saying (X in different words)." In the end the message is summarized as, "Earth does not belong to humans, humans belong to the Earth."

As the book itself acknowledges, humankind as a whole is unlikely to return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle at this point. So even if we agree, what should we do with this information? At the end, the narrator directly asks this question and the response is something along the lines of, "Well, now that you understand the truth, you can tell everyone, and humankind will quickly and easily figure out how to save the planet. See, the problem is just that you didn't realize the importance of saving the planet. You needed me to tell you. Because I am very smart."

There are some genuinely morally off-putting moments in the book, like when Ishmael suggests that we should stop giving aid to starving people because there are too many goddamn humans already, and when the narrator says, "What, we should allow them to die?" Ishmael (whose position is that death is natural and that therefore dying isn't so bad) is like "dude my broh that's your white savior complex talking, you aren't in a position to 'allow' anything, you should just, like, exist. But also you need to save the planet. But that will happen naturally anyway, because complicated problem-solving just naturally flows from grand, vague philosophical pronouncements. I am a gorilla and therefore can see your problems more objectively. I am definitely not the author in a costume."

Mostly, though, it's not any specific stance within the pages that I object to. I just hate the book's insufferable adolescent armchair philosopher stoner sense of self-importance and shallow, smug intellectualism. I hate the mansplaining Mary Sue gorilla and the fawning idiot waifu blank slate narrator. I could ignore the whole thing more easily, except that it's a pretty famous bestseller and I'm angry about that. Maybe a part of me is jealous because I secretly want to write self-indulgent trash like this and have it become a cultural phenomenon.

[redshiftsinger]

Thiiiiis.

Speaking from experience for a minute (abuse cw, though I won't go into a lot of personal details):

When you grew up in an abusive, controlling environment and you haven't really ever experienced life outside of such environments (remember, Hornigold is also made out to be pretty damn abusive toward his underlings), you become numb to a LOT.

People with abusive parents often get into abusive relationships as adults. Not always identical ones, but when the people you're hardwired at birth to trust implicitly, your PARENTS, regularly abuse you in any way, your psyche tends to cover that dissonance by believing that the abuse your parent/s inflict on you is normal and even good and right. It's a cognitive distortion, but it's something that human psyches do.

It happened to me. And we're shown very clearly that Ed grew up in an abusive household -- his father verbally and physically abuses his mother on screen, we see Young Ed cowering against the wall in fear of his father's wrath before deciding to take action to protect his mother and himself. My parents weren't physically abusive like that, it was covert emotional abuse and controlling, isolating, and wildly excessive expectations with harsh punishments for failing to meet them, but nonetheless it set me up for some real problems as an adult getting into relationships (some of which DID end up involving physical abuse). And friendships -- yes, friendships too can be abusive, it's not always parents and SO's. Not ALL of my relationships became abusive, of course! I've had a lot of good friends and good lovers who I've lost contact with for various reasons but hold no grudges against, as well as long-term friends I'm still close with. But the ones that did... they had a much easier time sucking me in, because I'd been primed to accept controlling behavior as indicative of love, as a proxy for true intimacy (including the emotional intimacy present in a healthy close friendship -- I don't think Ed has romantic feelings toward Izzy. He doesn't need to for this dynamic to play out between them).

When you've never known anything different, it's SO easy to fall into the habit of appeasing someone who belittles and demeans you as a manipulation tactic. A child is hardwired to crave their parents' approval, and an abusive parent uses that against them. Breaking out of that pattern is incredibly hard. Even as an adult. Even as an intellectually-gifted individual -- the whole thing runs on a much more instinctive level of cognition than higher intellect. Sometimes, people who know they're smart have even less defense against emotional manipulation because they assume that their intellect protects them, but truly no one is immune. It's possible to become resistant by learning about patterns of abuse and manipulation, actively engaging critical thinking, and a healthy amount of "trusting your gut" instead of overriding it thinking "but maybe I'm just imagining things there's no objective reason not to trust this person" (though it's important to also question your gut a healthy amount, particularly if it tends to mistrust demographics rather than individuals), but raw intellect has no direct protective benefit.

It absolutely does become something that feels normal, once you've been around it for too long, and particularly if you're steeped in it through childhood and into early adulthood. Of course Ed doesn't think "wow, Izzy is such a toxic asshole, I should get rid of him". He thinks "Izzy is a jerk but that's just how people are". He thinks he's (relatively) safe because he's smart and because he's *technically* in a position of relative power over Izzy, in the part of their dynamic that's immediately apparent to outside observers. But none of that counteracts his deeply-reinforced habit of appeasing people who are mean to him in the hopes that they'll hurt him less. None of that remotely makes up for the fact that therapy doesn't exist in 1717 and he's running around with completely untreated cPTSD that he doesn't remotely understand because he doesn't have the resources of knowledge to understand it WITH. And Izzy has learned to push his buttons and use his emotions against him to make him do what Izzy wants. Even if Izzy is ham-fisted and incompetent at manipulation, he's lucked his way into a target who's been extensively primed to be responsive (or rather, reactive) to those tactics.

And Ed DOES start to see it, as he has a chance to experience an interpersonal relationship based on true respect and caring. He's not stupid, he's just never been shown an alternative before. It's been so far beyond his experience that he can barely even imagine what it might be like to be in a truly healthy and supportive environment, at the beginning of s1. But by the end of the season he recognizes Izzy's controlling bullshit for what it is, even as he falls back into thinking he has to obey to be safe. It's part of what makes his kraken arc so tragic -- he's come so close to breaking free, even with Stede gone he was able to imagine a different life for himself, and he understands now that this ISN'T just how life is. He has another frame of reference to compare to, and it makes him all the more miserable to feel so trapped. And he recognizes Izzy as his jailer so to speak, as the person keeping him where he doesn't want to be, but he hasn't quite gotten to the point of being able to stand up for himself in a truly healthy way, or trust that anyone else would have his back if he did.

I understand why people say that Izzy was not smart enough to be manipulative, but I just don't think that's a real thing. And no one is too smart to be manipulated either, even Ed.

If someone tells you something like it's true enough times, it starts to feel true. No matter how much of a genius you are or how incompetent they are. Especially if it's someone you interact with every day and think of as your only family.

Last time I said that, someone said something like "if Izzy is so terrible, why would Ed let him stay? Are you questioning Ed's judgement?" Uh, yeah. Ed's not stupid for keeping him around. This sort of thing happens all the time in real life. Ed's dad was a dick. Hornigold was a dick. At this point he's so used to having a guy around who's awful to him that it feels normal.

#21.

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

What are your thoughts on Near and Mello (Death Note)? You don’t seem to like them as characters

I was about to say that I don’t necessarily dislike them, but, honestly, I do. I really really do.

And hey, look at that, I get to offend an entirely new fandom. 

To be honest though I’m not even sure where to begin.

I suppose I’ll start with the concept of the orphan heirs to the title of L.

Wammy’s Dog Fighting Arena for Boys

Death Note is a fantastic and brilliant anime, however, every once in a while more general anime tropes sneak through and cause it to fall flat on its face. We have L, who for reasons is a sugar addicted man child (well, I actually have thoughts on L, who I quite like, but my theory is that he is the way he is because he’s a jackass who fully intends to be that off putting).

The Wammy orphan bit is the worst of this. We have an orphanage of... children competing for the title of L, an anonymous detective that Watari made up. These children are all super serial geniuses who are even weirder and less socially adjusted than L. Just, kill me.

Even the premise for why they exist is bad. The authors’ in the Death Note guide admit that, when they realized they were going to kill off L, they realized they had a major problem. They didn’t want a repeat arc with another L as a nemesis, SO THEY BROUGHT US TWO Ls, THAT’S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

Why I call it anime derp is that the whole ridiculous Wammy’s concept is never addressed. Wammy’s existence, the little we do know of L’s backstory, makes Watari the level of skeevy reserved for manipulative Dumbledore.

The man uses these children and pits them against each other in a high stakes intellectual environment where they stake their entire worth on their still developing intelligence.

In canon, we see what this has done to Mello, L, Matt, and Near. All of them are completely messed up human beings and they either die or never get better. L is an utter jackass who cares very little about justice. Mello becomes an actual gangster and uses the Death Note to make hits on rival gang members (not to mention Sayu, but we’ll get into that). Matt also becomes a gang member and kidnaps multiple women. Near cannot function, at all, in society and when we catch up to him ten years later in that hilariterrible one-shot he’s gotten even worse.

If we’re taking LABB as canon then you have Beyond Birthday who becomes a serial murderer and lights himself on fire in a desperate, insane, attempt to show up L. We have reference to A who killed himself under the pressure of trying to become L. 

We can presume there’s been other orphaned children, who had nowhere else to go and no one to protect them, that Wammy just destroyed so that he could have Batman.

Death Note, however, never touches this with a ten foot pole.

Instead these are our weird and quirky band of heroes who are so weird because... it’s anime and we like weird! Weird means you’re a super genius! Yay genius orphanage!

So, right at the very idea of Wammy’s existing, they already have to win me back. Mello and Near do not win me back.

Mello is a Thug

We’re supposed to feel very bad for Mello, he’s always been second to Near and this messes him up, and he leaves to try and find his own path. I’d say god bless him, you go Mello, except his own path turns out to become a gangster.

Mello’s not a remotely good guy.

Just because he’s pitted himself against Light, and tells us he’s sticking it to Kira and Near at the same time, does not make him remotely good. And that’s what irks me about him, Mello is a great skeezy character, but the story actively wants me to think he’s the hero.

It’s sort of like trying to convince me that Kylo-Ren is secretly a great guy. It’s really hard to sell me on that when we watch Mello in real time and, more, why are we even bothering? Let Mello be the scumbag he is.

First, Mello steals a weapon of mass destruction and immediately begins using it. It’s not about solving the Kira case for him, or at least, it’s certainly not about stopping Kira. It’s about showing up Near, L, and all those who never believed in him. 

That Mello, first, not only steals the notebook from the government, but then gets it into the hands of gangsters, AND THEN USES IT TO ASSASSINATE HIS RIVALS. Well, suffice to say, you do you Mello.

More, this is a guy who tortures, murders, and probably rapes multiple people to get this to happen. Mello’s attempts to retrieve the notebook start with the kidnapping of Japan’s head of the police force. He then kidnaps Light Yagami’s younger sister and... Something very bad happens to Sayu.

We never get confirmed what happen, we don’t see much of her in captivity or much after, however immediately after the events we see her in a wheelchair. At the end of the series, Sayu is catatonic and barely able to express emotion.

It’s highly implied she was raped.

With the kidnapping of Takada, regardless of what you think of her... Nothing good was going to come of that. Mello resorts to the tactics of terrorists just so he can prove he’s a big man.

Further, Mello’s brilliance is never really that brilliant. Yes, he gets the notebook (though notably does not hold it long and loses his name in the process). However, his big win at the end is supposed to be him having realized Mikami would mess up were he to kidnap Takada. He had no guarantee of this, frankly, I think he was just kidnapping Takada in an act of desperation. Because that’s what Mello does when he runs out of ideas: he kidnaps people close to Light Yagami and sees what happens.

This gets both him and Matt brutally killed.

Near’s a Moron

Near is so weird and so maladjusted, my god, and he’s such a pretentious ass. He’s just... knock off L in every way. Which, granted, is kind of what he’s supposed to be. Except that the story never capitalizes on this. 

We see hints of it, Near trying desperately to live up to L’s name and mantle, but it never really delves into it.

More, what we do see of Near’s plans...

I really want to go into the one-shot epilogue, because that said so much about Near, but I’ll resist.

Instead I’ll note that L was 13 days from proving Light’s guilt. It takes Near and Mello combined five years, and Mikami’s dumb ass, to get to the same place. And even then, they nearly all died if Matsuda had been a worse shot.

Near has no idea that he’s nowhere near as brilliant as L. Instead, he gives us the world’s most hamfisted, frustrating, lecture at the end of the series where he tells us that Light was so stupid and that together he and Mello triumphed over evil.

Good for you, Near, I’m so happy for you.

I Just Don’t See the Point of Them

The second half of Death Note, in general, is a slough. It’s not just me saying this, you ask the majority of the fanbase, and they’ll admit it all goes downhill with L’s death.

I think the authors desperately wanted to avoid writing the dystopian politics of what would happen if Light won unopposed. They wanted a detective thriller, the trouble was, that story ended with L’s death.

So they try to feed us the same, but worse, story twice, and it just doesn’t work.

Personally, what I’d rather have seen is Matsuda and company slowly but surely realizing Light is Kira and Matsuda, in the end, having no choice but to assassinate him as they just cannot get any proof. It’s a very different story, but it would have been such a good story of betrayal that, again we sort of got hints of, but never really confronted.

Alternatively, keep Naomi Misora alive, and have her be the spearhead of brilliance we need. As it was, I am eternally sad/amused that she was killed off because she was too damn smart for the series (the authors admit she figured everything out too fast and as a result had to be eliminated).

Just, please, not genius orphan children. 

[talesofnovembria]

The truth about Arthur !

Send “The Truth about *Muse*”

And my muse will express how they feel about yours without holding back or sugarcoating

"Arthur is... complicated. Certainly more than anyone else I know... well maybe aside from my husband, but that's because he can be broken down to being an emotional wreck. Arthur is different."

"He's an... well for lack of being able to find better words, an emotional genius. What I mean by that is he gets the emotions of the people around him, especially when tensions get high. He's very good at defusing a situation where emotions are involved, unless there is something keeping him from doing so. Whenever he's around, he does his best to keep things from escalating... most of the time anyways."

"His combative prowess is average, though that could also be accounted to the fact that I have not seem much of him fighting. He seems more like the type to run from a fight rather than stand his ground, if only to not be in the way. That doesn't make him a coward though. He's smart. One must carefully pick and choose their battles. More often than not, it is the presence of danger that makes him act... and often do stupid things. I swear, the man has no concept of self-preservation."

"Out of everyone I know, he's certainly the smartest, and the one that can hold the best intellectual conversation with someone like me. He understands me on a level unlike the others. It probably helps that he knows do much of my home and... what it's like there... to some degree... but he'll speak with me in a calm, collected manner. We can see one another's points, and take into account things that many not have been thought of on both sides."

"If you were to combine the tactical and logical side of my brain along with his understanding of emotions and reactions, then higher beings above help anyone that may have pissed either one of us off. Or put someone we care about in danger."

"Arthur certainly has a big heart, but that can also be quite a problem. On the surface level, wanting to help anyone and everyone is a noble goal, especially when it comes to those that are looking to turn over a new leaf, or regret things they might have done in the past. I am worried such a thing will come back to bite him. Not everyone deserves such a chance, nor will want to change. He could very easily be taken advantage of with that kind of kindness."

"He can tend to be a hypocrite at times as well. He... falls in a similar line with myself. Telling others to do certain things, or advice that he himself will not follow through with. It's obnoxious when we can pick up on it, but credit where it is due, he has gotten a bit better at it."

"All that being said though, he is good company to have around. He is a good person, despite what anyone else says. He's determined, can keep people in line, and looks for the best in everyone. I can't think of anyone else that would allow me to break his own computer out of a hurt feeling... and then go smashing at cars to the point where it's kind of our thing."

"In a lot of ways... he's like me... and that both comforts me, and terrifies me. But I wouldn't trade him for anyone else. I wouldn't be a 'Kingsmen' otherwise."

[pass-the-bechdel]

Continuum full series review

How many episodes pass the Bechdel test?

73.81% (thirty-one out of forty-two).

What is the average percentage of female characters with names and lines for the full series?

32.75%

How many episodes have a cast that is at least 40% female?

Ten.

How many episodes have a cast that is at least 50% female?

One, episode 2.07, “Second Degree” (50%).

How many episodes have a cast that is less than 20% female?

One, episode 3.09, “Minute of Silence” (18.2%).

Positive Content Status:

The definition of unremarkable—it may not be making any egregious mistakes, but aside from its chief concern, it’s not saying anything of interest (average episode rating of 3.00).

Which season had the best representation statistics overall?

Season three not only had the best Bechdel scores, but the highest amount of female characters.

Which season had the worst representation statistics overall?

Season four. While it didn’t feature the episode with the least female characters—that would be season three—it features the least Bechdel passes and the least amount of female characters.

Overall Series Quality:

Worth watching.  It won’t blow your mind, but it won’t waste your time, either.  

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) under the cut:

If a word describes Continuum, it’s “solid”. It’s a well-made show, one that understands the basic building blocks of well-made genre television and doesn’t attempt to upend them for the sake of upending them (except when it does). However, my enjoyment of the series is more intellectual than visceral, and creating a list of my top ten favorite episodes is nigh-impossible, since I don’t really feel that strongly about them as individual units.

So if the series is rarely great—if even its best rarely makes your heart race the way the best episodes of Nikita or Person of Interest do—then why do I still consider it exceptional and worth one’s time?  

Reason number one: Kiera Cameron. 

Television, over the past decade, has done a steady job of perfecting its female genre-show anti-heroes, which, unsurprisingly, has resulted in a fair amount of sameness. It is often enjoyable sameness, to be clear—Root and Shaw are fantastic characters, and I love them—but sameness all the same. These female characters do not care for the rules (except when they do—for example, they never look unattractive or unmade-up). They are loud. They are often hedonistic. There is a sense that characters have to be fun, even if they are A Lot. They are, in many ways, rebels. And to be clear, these stories are absolutely necessary; that we now have these characters is important. Yet, there are other ways to be, which are also equally compelling and equally feminist.

Kiera Cameron is not a rebel. All she ever wanted to be a comfortable drone (even as her instincts told her something was terribly wrong) and a mother.  In another place, in another time, she’d be one of the Nazis who were allegedly “just doing [their] job,” which is not something one usually says of heroes. She is also decisive, quick-thinking, adaptable and manipulative, with a keen understanding of people. She likes operating under a clear leadership structure, but she can operate perfectly well—thrive, even—without it. Within forty-eight hours of being stranded in an entirely new world, she has integrated herself into its law enforcement apparatus and made a life for herself.  

Kiera is, in the end, the best part of Continuum, because of the way the series allows her to be shaped by her contradictions. Credit must also be given to Rachel Nichols, who is one of the more underrated white actresses currently working on television. Continuum asks a lot of Kiera, and she allows her to be a lot of different things while still being recognizably Kiera.

A good protagonist deserves a good antagonist, and boy, does Liber8 deliver. The group may have an extremely silly name, but it is, like Kiera, something one doesn’t see every day: an enemy group with a point, and which arguably holds the moral high ground, even as it performs mass murder.  

In a worse show, the various members of Liber8 would have been hypocrites. They would have either not believed in what they preached, or been more concerned with themselves than with the cause, or proved willing to abandon it for their survival. Alternatively, they would have been presented as all bark and no bite, more Robin Hood than Osama Bin Laden.  And while all those things are true for one specific member of the group—Kellog—the fact that he exists at a remove both allows the series to explore that hypocrisy, while leaving Liber8 free to actually be something else.  

Furthermore, I enjoy that Liber8 is smart. Mass murder is not the only thing they do. While I’m not sure I’d call Continuum a competence porn series the way something like Leverage is, there is something very satisfying about seeing Liber8 continuously switch up their tactics and be clever about how they approach their battle against corporate interests.  Yes, they do mass murder, but they also do blackmail, corporate espionage, political assassination and political patronage, sabotage, whistleblowing, community-building, and public relations.  They know that their cause will need funds, but don’t sell out in order to obtain them. It is very satisfying. 

I’ve heard commentary on Continuum arguing that the series’ unwillingness to cast explicit judgment on Kiera is a weakness. In her own small way, she is complicit in the oppression of millions, and is willing to replicate oppressive power structures; shouldn’t the series have something to say about that? And yet, this...objectivity, I guess you could call it, is, I feel, one of the series’ chief strengths.  It’s not that the series isn’t aware of what Kiera believes and has done; it’s just that the series trusts the audience to draw its own conclusions. Kiera can be heroic and have a fascist mindset. The members of Liber8 can be mass murderers who are also in the right.  Dillon can be a cheerleader for the privatization of his police department, and still be sympathetic.  A TV series can be a traditional police procedural at heart and admit that cops are scum 80% of the time. One doesn’t negate the other, and that the series goes as far as it does with its characters and concepts feels uncommonly audacious for the sort of show this is.  

Another element that makes the series memorable is its commitment to its central conflict.  Person of Interest may have been about the surveillance state and the increasing role of artificial intelligence, but most of its episodes were actually about Finch and company being super-heroes. The same could have been the case for Continuum—“police procedural” is a key part of its DNA—and the fact that it isn’t—that its anti-capitalist sensibilities are almost always there, and critical—helps make the series feel singular, and relevant. It’s not the first TV show to have something to say about a specific thing, but it’s easily the show most dedicated to saying it.  

This, however, is a double-edged sword. 

Simon Barry, Continuum’s creator, is a white dude. It shows. For all of the thought the show puts into the dangers of unchecked capitalism (or just capitalism, if you’d prefer), it puts very little, if any, into how oppression is shaped by prejudices or group identities. The future of Continuum may be terrible, we’re shown, and yet it never quite seems terrible enough, or weirdly uniformly terrible.  That Jaworski, of all the Liber8 members, is the one who is most forcibly dehumanized by the corporate state rings very false.  Having the majority of Liber8 consist of people of color isn’t enough—not when the series is claiming that 2077 is a direct reflection of 2012.  

Similarly, while the show boasts more female characters than is the norm for shows like this, I can’t actually say it does much beside that. Going through the series, it’s hard not to notice that very few of the female characters have what I would consider a satisfying overall story.  Betty is killed off after months of misery. Katherine is killed off before she can really have any sort of impact besides filling in a necessary storytelling role. Garza and Emily are in a sort of limbo by the time the series ends. Ann Saddler just disappears. Aside from Kiera, only Sonya is said to have a story with a beginning, middle, end, and like Betty’s, it ends with her death.  While these are all fantastic characters, their stories are generally disappointing.  

Part of the problem is, of course, that the show barely has time for deep dives into its characters’ psyches, given all the things on its plate. The show only has so much time to spend on character development, and its priority is breadth rather than depth. On the other hand, it’s hard not to notice that of the characters who do get consistent focus and character development (Kiera, Alec, Carlos, Dillon, Julian), only Kiera is a woman.

It’s also worth noting that while the show kills off fairly similar numbers of male and female characters—at least when speaking in absolute numbers—things look quite different when speaking in relative terms. It’s perhaps best seen with Liber8’s dwindling numbers: sure, you can kill off Jaworski, Chen, and Kagame, but you’ll still have Travis, Marcus, and Kellog.  Kill off Sonya, on the other hand, and the hole she leaves becomes very hard to fill.  The same rings true for the series as a whole, which is why its final season feels so bereft, when it comes to female representation. 

Additionally, while it’s pleasing to see male and female characters used more or less in the same way (although it’s worth noting that this doesn’t actually result in a 50/50 gender ratio) it is less so when the series in turn makes an implicit argument that there is not a sexist element to institutionalized oppression. Scattered instances of potential subtext aside, the series has very little to say about sexism in the future, which again, rings quite false when so many of the characters are freedom fighters.

And yet…

Had the series been more traditional, it’s likely these issues would have felt fatal. Instead, they merely feel bothersome; they annoy instead of cripple. It either speaks to how satisfying Continuum generally is, or how dispassionate my enjoyment of the series is. In any case, Continuum does what it does so interestingly, it’s hard not to set all of these aside and just get swept away by it. It tried something different and did some very interesting things with it, and, as it turns out, that’s more than enough.  

[drumpfwatch]

The Debate Soapbox

There are so many ways that the Trump Presidency has changed me as a person. One of them is by changing the dynamic of my conversations I have with other people, for better or worse. 

See, I used to love debating. Talking to people and trying to reach a conclusion about the nature of the world together, that we both can agree on. Not just because I’m a confrontational person, but because I like to learn. Debate is a wonderful way to sharpen your wit, practice your improv skills, and learn new things. 

To that end, whenever I would get into an argument with someone, there would be times  when I couldn’t convince them. In part because these discussions would be about opinions - I’ve talked before about how politics is part fact, part opinion, and I’ve also spoken about how solutions are a thing worth talking over, and frankly I could write an entire article about how there are some things that not only don’t have answers that can be considered anything but opinion, but debating those things is actually super important.

To a degree, I still believe that. But it no longer is my primary motivation for starting a debate. I also no longer have debates with people who I know disagree with me on political issues, and the reason why is pretty simple. These people are no longer interested in debates.

They are interested in preaching. 

Let’s ignore the fact that most men who argue do so to inflate their egos. Look how smart I am, intellectually eviscerating this person! That could honestly be an entire post in and of itself. And before you “Not All Men” me, I am aware that not every one of them is like that and there are plenty of women who are the same way - I used to be that way - but it is usually men and there’s something about the way society has gotten men to do it that is especially condescending. The sexism isn’t the point here, the point is something a little deeper.

When a cisgendered white heterosexual man debates about the rights of, say, transgendered people, he has no stake in it. To him, it is an abstract concept. Whether or not GSRM people get put into camps to be “reprogrammed” is more or less meaningless to them because it won’t ever affect them. They may have empathy to the situation, and may be able to put themselves in others shoes (usually because they happen to know someone who is a member of the GSRM community), but they can’t ever really know what it’s like to be in that position. And that’s what leads to the real problem.

To them, debates on politics in the arena of social justice become abstract concepts. The laws and policies they advocate for are just words on paper without real effects. It’s easy to distance yourself from people, and when the government itself is trying to get you to dehumanize those people it gets VERY easy to from arguing about this stuff from a position of ignorance to then be convinced that the “correct answer” is one that leads to pain, and even, if they’re in the right place, to turn them to hate.

At the risk of starting a fight, let’s talk about the ever-loved euphemism of States Rights. Now, I am aware that this is still something that gets used to this day to deny people rights and the what have you, so I ask any travelers from the right side of the aisle to be polite and consider the point being made here. At the end of the day, the history is true, and even if it isn’t, the situation I’m describing works to help illustrate the point I’m trying to make. Because let’s face it, I could write an entire article on any number of these tactics.

So let’s go back to the 1960s and talk about States Rights.

See, Silverwater and his ilk knew that they could garner enough support in their own states to get what they wanted within their own states. Alabamans were never going to vote for blacks to have the right to vote, partly because the people who cared were mostly the black people. Who, you know, couldn’t vote. They also used other techniques to make that happen, but the point is the only way it would happen anytime this century was if the Federal Government made it, and it was getting dangerously close to doing so.

B vaSo instead of just admitting that they’re racists and want to be racists about it, they concocted the argument of “States Rights”. The idea was that if they made it sound like they weren’t being dicks about it, the more people would pick it up. You have to make it sound intellectual, which gives people the excuse. So they went around saying that, “No, we’re not racists! We’re not racist at all! We just believe that votership is a sacred right of the states, and the federal government has no right to be sticking their fingers in the sacred state pie!” 

And people bought it. People still buy it today. The effect of this is two fold. First, it shifts the conversation. The debate we’re having is “should black people be allowed to vote,” not “who has the right to decide who gets to vote.” Or at least, that’s the debate we should be having. Suddenly though, we’re not. The topic has changed. This distracts from the conversation and changes it to a discussion that you’re not necessarily prepared for.

The second effect is not on you, it’s on the one making the argument. They feel like they’re making a compelling point. Whether or not you refute the point, whether or not the point is actually relevant to the discussion, if you can’t address it they feel like they’ve won. And that, of course, leads to them using it again because it scores a point.

From there, it only gets worse. These guys who think they’re paragons of logic suddenly have what they feel is a logical reason for not being hateful - they don’t think they’re discriminatory, they think they’re just being fair.

There are a million guises this nonsense can come in. Another good example comes from the feminism section of the discourse. You’ll hear MRAs talk about how “men in the military are way more likely to die then women,” or how “Men don’t have housing shelters to protect them from spousal abuse like women do” and then use that to argue that feminism is ineffective or wrong. What they don’t realize is that, say, men die a lot more in the army then women because until recently women were actually forbidden from having combat roles, and that even accounting for the underreported statistics of woman on man spousal abuse, men are still far, FAR more likely to be the ones abusing. There also ARE shelters that cater to protecting men, but yes, not nearly as many as there should be.

Or how about gentrification? “They’re bringing in new businesses and fresh market blood to the area, why is that a bad thing? Why is that a racist thing?” This one is actually a really perfect example of this exact problem. On the surface yes, it does seem like by gentrifying a town you’re making life better for the people who live there, but the truth is far, far more complicated. I could write an entire article on it, but the two biggest problems are that the money brought in to the town by the gentrification is great, none of it really goes back into the local area. It all goes into the pockets of the companies and people “improving” the area. The second problem is that because that area of town is suddenly a lot better, the cost of living can go up, and because the cost of living can go up, the poor people who already live there are suddenly in an environment they can’t afford to live in. Oops! So the poor people are forced out of the area. And since America is a late capitalist hellscape built on racism, those poor people tend to be black. So black people are being kicked out of their homes because wealthy whites people want the space for another strip mall. And that, my friend, is racist. 

But, as I’ve already established, you can be entirely ignorant to the surrounding circumstances and think that it’s not. Or you could be familiar with them, but because it was a good-for-nothing liberal who told you, you don’t believe what they have to say. Either way, the argument at this point isn’t about how to prevent racism, it’s about what racism is in the first place. And that shift is one the Nazis and White Supremacists love to take hold of.

See, it doesn’t take much to go from “Logically, it cannot be proven that I am in support of a racist decision” to then go to “These people have been deluded into thinking I am a racist, even though I am just logical.” From there, our hypothetical Logic Boy is susceptible to the infections we’ve talked about before. Those filthy gays don’t want to just be left alone like they say, they want to all the straights to die. They’re out to get you, you have to try and stop them! Here’s the evidence for that!

And then the process is like every other conspiracy, and I’ve talked about that before. 

What I’m saying is that these debates? Maybe there are one or two people left who are actually interested in having them, and maybe there are people out there who seek them out to try and truly find out who’s right and wrong. But most of the people out there goading you into it are not doing it out of a philosophical interest in being morally justified. 

They’re using that debate platform as a soap box to draw other people in, and by arguing back with them, you give them access to your followers. By engaging them, you validate their position as “equal” to your own. Back in my days attacking creationism, this was actually a very interesting debate in its own right I say going on. I remember when Bill Nye debated Creationist Shill Ken Ham(‘n Cheese) a lot of people were telling him not to do it because it validated Ken Ham’s position as equal to that of the scientific consensus. I was on the other side of that debate, arguing that the intellectual evisceration that Ham was sure to receive would get people away from Creationism. I also argued that while Bill is an engineer and a popularly known scientist, he is an aeronautical engineer, not an evolutionary biologist, and he doesn’t even have a doctorate. If Ken Ham can’t beat Bill Nye then he sure as hell doesn’t even deserve to debate with actual biologists. It’s been years since that day, and I don’t know how many people that’s true for - I don’t think even the people for it is tr use would know it, leaving any cult tends to be a slow process that starts with things the person doesn’t even realize opened their eyes until later - but I do know that even on Christian Creaitonist websites, it was pretty unanimous that Ken Ham’nCheese lost.

But I don’t know if I still feel that way these days. Of course, creationism is a different sort of beast then White Nationalism and the other social ills that plague our planet, but I know that for now, at least, I have no real interest in debating white supremacists. I’ll rail on their points, day and night, because they’re wrong and deserve to be railed on, but I will never give them a platform. I will never debate them. I will never give them, personally, access to my followers, and I will never say any of their points without having a refutation immediately following. You shouldn’t either.

[dylanobrienisbatman]

The 100 Characters Hogwarts Sorting Series

The Philosopher’s Stone “You might belong in Gryffindor, Where dwell the brave at heart, Their daring, nerve and chivalry Set Gryffindors apart.”

The Goblet of Fire “Bold Gryffindor, from wild moor... ...By Gryffindor, the bravest were Prized far beyond the rest.”

The Order of the Phoenix “For were there such friends anywhere As Slytherin and Gryffindor?... ... Said Gryffindor, “We’ll teach all those With brave deeds to their name... ...While the bravest and the boldest Went to daring Gryffindor.”

In Harry Potter, Gryffindor just seems to hold all of our “good guy” characters, but I am taking a more ‘trait based’ approach to Gryffindor here. Gryffindors are brash, bold, daring, brave, and wild characters. They don’t follow the rules, not because they have some sort of disdain for them, or because they necessarily think their way is better, but because rules get in the way of sheer, unadulterated bravery. Not always the kindest, or the most caring, Gryffindors care about being the hero, more than anything else. They like the glory that comes with it. The powers of Gryffindor can be used for good or for evil, and the Lions in this show are truly varied in that regard. In Gryffindor we find: 

Zeke Shaw

An all out adrenaline junkie, who joined up into the airforce for the thrill of it. He stands up to bullies, no matter what ‘side’ those bullies are on, and he’s got a knack for flinging himself into dangerous situations when his moral compass calls for it. He likes the thrill of it, and he gets into danger just for fun. Motorcycles too fast on the highway, jet planes, and spaceships. He didn’t join up for the cause, he joined up for the fun of it. He is smart as hell, but what he values most in himself is his own bravery. Lion heart for sure. 

Jasper Jordan

We got a taste of Jaspers Lionhearted ways during season 1, and by a taste I mean we saw it big time. He wanted nothing more than to BE the hero. He lept into the water to save Octavia. He swung across the river to impress the girl. He followed Clarke and Bellamy to the meet up on the bridge, and even though he panicked, he revelled in the glory and popularity. He wanted to be like Bellamy, the big hero, the one everyone loved and adored. And as much as I think Jasper was terrified, all the time, he wanted to be brave. He organised his friends in the Mountain to save everyone. He was untying his own hands to slit Cage Wallace’s throat in season 2 before Clarke pulled the level. And when he became self destructive, that bravery turned dark. He threw himself into danger, just to feel something. He put himself in harms way because it was the only thing that made him feel alive. And in the end, he was still brave. He was just tired, and his depression and PTSD took over, but he was able to bravely stand with his friends and say that enough was enough, for them. It was horrible and sad, and I wish he had been able to get better, but he was brave, all the way to the end, and that was who Jasper was. The Brave boy who wanted to be a hero. 

Harper McIntyre

Gosh, if there was every a character who deserved the moniker of Brave, its Harper. Thrown to earth as a teenager, she found her place in a group of insane criminal kids, and fought her way to being the first female guard we saw. She stood up for what she thought was right, what she believed in, even when it went against what her friends and loved ones believed (“it takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies... but a great deal more, to stand up to your friends”), and she picked herself back up after every horrible thing she experienced, pulling herself back up long enough to find peace in space with her new family. What a brave, beautiful soul.

Octavia Blake

Octavia has always been all brawn, and that is such a strong Gryffindor trait. Octavia flings herself headfirst into a situation without really sitting back and thinking things through, and uses her bravery and her just sheer force of will to get her way. In season 1 we saw it a lot with the way she was with Lincoln, and from what we learned about her childhood. Bravery was the thing that kept her going under the floor, and it’s what she used in season 1 to find her place, and it never stopped. She wants to be a warrior, not because she believed in any cause, but because she felt like fighting and winning gave her purpose. She fought for skaikru not because she truly felt they deserved a place, but because they needed a champion and she could be that. She became an assassin because the only way she could cope with her loss was through violence and anger. Even how she led in the bunker was SO Gryffindor. She would listen to her advisors, but it was never about what the smartest choice was. By the end it was about her power. That lust for hero status, for legend and fame, is very Lion of her. 

Madi kom Louadaklironkru

The littlest Lion. I think i knew she was a little gryffindor when she said Octavia was her favourite in the stories. She was fuelled by stories of warriors and fighting, on legendary heroes. She didn’t love sneaky Murphy or brilliant Raven or kind and loyal Bellamy, she loved the pure brawn and fight of Octavia. Madi’s bravery came through on her own throughout the season as well. She made rash, arguably stupid choices when it came to saving the people she loved (telling O she was a real nightblood to protect Clarke anyone?), but she also had no problem calling Clarke out when she felt like they needed to be the heroes. Taking the flame, her biggest fear, to save her mom? Brave as brave can be. Leading an army into battle to save the world? The bravest little lion of them all. 

Marcus Kane

Marcus started out as the quintessential rule following hard-ass character in season 1, but he evolved into someone so much more over time. Marcus is one of the Gryffindor characters who is not ruled by the want for legend, but is still ruled by brashness and bravery. He’s a smart guy, for sure, and he’s true to his beliefs, but he functions best when he’s leading the charge. He stands up to tyrants (re: pike, alie, octavia) with no concern for his own life, because he believes in doing whats right. He also puts himself into positions of power, because his charm and charisma gets him there. There is a reason he functioned so well as the ambassador for Skaikru, even though he wasn’t their leader. He had the ability to smile and charm his way to diplomacy when more intellectually brained characters like Jaha couldn’t, and he was able to do it with a true sincerity, where characters like Clarke and Abby would have had too much of their own agenda to succeed. 

Finn Collins

Finn was all about the glory of it all. He would fling himself into danger to prove himself to the girl, at any turn. But Finn’s bravery was dark, in the most gryffindor way. He was brave because of what it gave him. Recognition. Respect. The awe of the crowd. Finn was never a character that really seemed to care about anyone other than Clarke and Raven, but he planned peace talks and massacred villages because of the women in his life. His bravery knew no moral place, it was all for his own self interest. 

Illian kom Trishanakru

Illian was difficult to sort because sometimes it was hard to see who he really was, but I think his bravery was a big part of him. He ran straight into the enemy camp to blow up the ark, with no care for what it could be used for, because his own anger pushed him there. He wasn’t particularly smart or sneaky about it either. He saw Octavia, and decided she was his in, and he did it. He showed up for his conclave because his people needed a champion, and fought because he had too. Duty and honor drove him, but so did vengeance.  

Ontari kom Azgeda

Ontari is all fight. I see a lot of people sort her into slytherin, but she is nowhere near cunning enough. If she had been more Slytherin, she wouldn’t have needed Murphy to help her with her long con as Fake Commander, but she would never have succeeded without him. Her middle of the night conclave/massacre wasn’t strategy or sneakiness, it was just sheer brawn. She saw the chance and went for it. She lusted for power. She used her strength and her violence to take it. She took out the eyes of an advisor instead of trying to woo him. She cut off the heads of the noviciates instead of just winning on her own, which she easily could have. She took the chip from ALIE, even though Murphy told her not too, because she thought it would give her true power. Ontari was all about glory. She wanted to be the Commander because she wanted to win. 

Roma

Sadly we didn’t see a lot of Roma, but girl was brave. She never hesitated when the group needed to send out a rescue party. She grabbed a weapon and ran off to help. She did it because the group needed her, and she was there. 

Paxton McCreary

McCreary is such a Gryffindor. He isn’t that smart, or that conniving, but he made his way to leadership by sheer force and pressure. He succeeded by taking what other, more tactical leaders left behind when he took power from them with brute force. He blew up the world, because if he couldn’t lead it, then no one could have it. All bravado, all the time. 

Cage Wallace

Cage Wallace wanted to be the man who brought his people back to the ground, and he was willing to do whatever it took to get there. He utilised his fathers foundation, Dr. Tsing’s mind, and his own charm to get himself into power, and once he was there, he would stop at nothing to get his way. I feel like he could also be a Slytherin, but I dont think he himself was actually the mastermind behind the planning. He saw what Dr. Tsing could do, and what it could get them, and he convinced the people he needed to put himself into power so he could use her to get it. I think he was much more nerve and gusto than anything else. 

Maya Vie

My sweet, brave girl. Maya was a character that came off as tymid and fearful sometimes, but that was such a complete misdirect. She was a force of nature. She fought back against the world she had grown up in because, even if it meant her own death, she knew the right thing to do, and she was going to do it. She helped Jasper, she helped Bellamy, and in the end, when she was being hunted by her own people, after her father was killed and her world was destroyed, she was still ready to stand up and die for her cause. Bravery ran through her veins, and her strength was inspiring. 

Of course these are my personal opinions, and how I see these characters. Enjoy!

Ravenclaw Hufflepuff Slytherin

[mylordshesacactus]

Have you ever thought about the idea of Qui-Gon training Barriss? I feel like she'd have been a lot happier with him. He's so chill.

Because of…who we are as people…me and @alexkablob have had long discussions about how different Masters and their approaches might have affected Barriss.

The tl;dr here is that the best I can say is Qui-Gon wouldn’t be the worst option.

This is gonna get long, I apologize. You prompted me about Jedi apprenticeship AND the flaws of the Code in allowing Masters and Padawans to communicate effectively AND Barriss and Luminara’s specific relationship, anon, you asked for this.

So the central Thing here is Barriss Offee as a person. She’s extremely anxious, eager to please to the point where it becomes pathological, quiet, responsible, whip-smart, a healer, and she absolutely cannot improvise; if she has a plan she’ll execute it, but she cannot plan on the fly under pressure, this is consistent.

Keeping these things in mind:

Luminara is, frankly, the perfect match for her. They have a similar, methodical approach; Luminara is a strategic analyst for the Republic, and her skill for putting together strong, well-thought-out plans is perfectly in sync with Barriss’ own preference for advance planning and anxiety about winging it. Being paired with her allows Barriss to have the intellectual challenges she needs and the ability to pursue her talents; Luminara has total faith in Barriss’ proven abilities and doesn’t hesitate to provide her with praise for those abilities and opportunities to use them. She’s also a calm, gentle, soft-spoken individual with a profoundly reassuring aura who demonstrates throughout her (few) appearances that she greatly values the lives of those under her command. She has a sense of humor that’s very present without being loud or jocular in a way that would make Barriss uncomfortable (ie, Anakin) and she has the emotional intelligence to tease Barriss only very gently, never touching her insecurities, and to nudge her into making friends.

Now, some of these things inadvertently worsen Barriss’ issues. That confident “she can do it” attitude ends up placing far too much pressure on her; Luminara’s very competence and grace end up fermenting into Barriss’ feelings of inadequacy and desperation to not disappoint her master. But that’s….almost entirely because of the war. It’s the nature of the assignments, not their difficulty, that breaks her; and in a time of peace, with more access to her master and time to process, I think they would have been lessened.

Their downfall as a master-apprentice pair wasn’t that Barriss had the wrong Master. Luminara’s own issues, namely her devotion to the Code and her own pathological fear of giving into attachment, were what tripped them up. She loves Barriss so much but is so focused on not giving in to those emotions that she rarely if ever allows herself to act on them at all, even when she should–with the result that she keeps Barriss at arm’s length and they’re too formal with each other. She’s so afraid of becoming too close that she doesn’t let herself get close enough to notice that anything’s wrong, or to make sure Barriss realizes how deeply she’s loved–and on top of that, once the war starts Barriss and Luminara are almost never together. She’s separated from her Master when she needs her most, and that was the nail in the coffin.

Basically: Luminara didn’t give her those issues. And for the most part, when they were actually able to work together as master and apprentice, Luminara mitigated a lot of Barriss’ flaws while encouraging her strengths. The war found the pressure points in their bond and pushed until they snapped, but it would do that with ANY pairing.

So if anyone hasn’t already scrolled past this long rambling bit of nonsense, under the cut please enjoy a bullet-point list of our thoughts on how Barriss would fare under different Masters. 

Anakin:

Disaster.

Just….pure, unmitigated disaster. If they didn’t drive each other into a murderous rage they’d just dissolve into mutual anxiety attacks

He’s too impulsive and careless, she’s too hesitant and not nearly bold enough, he’s emotive and incapable of controlling his temper to the point he would genuinely scare her

They already don’t get along particularly well, there’s a reason Barriss is so spiteful toward him in TWJ; force her into a position where he has boundless authority over her and one of them is getting smothered to death in his sleep.

I say “he” because it would 100% be Anakin

Obi-Wan:

On the surface, this seems like it would be a much better match, maybe even ideal.

It is not

It is not remotely a good match

Here’s the thing people misunderstand all the time about Obi-Wan’s character: he and Anakin are very similar.

Obi-Wan is just as much of a cowboy Jedi as Anakin ever was; he’s impulsive, easily goaded, and frequently hypocritical about the Jedi Code, and he has all of Luminara’s flaws on top of that.

So now you have a version of Barriss whose master is equally unwilling to acknowledge his own emotions and equally incapable of showing or admitting to his padawan that he cares about her, but also is unpredictable, too controlling, swings between overprotective and seemingly uncaring, cares too much about what the Council will think of him, rarely if ever explains why he gives certain commands or thinks certain things, and occasionally loses his temper.

Above anything else, at least with Luminara, Barriss never has any uncertainty as to where she stands or what is expected of her.

Obi-Wan attempting to train Barriss would be better for exactly one person and that is Obi-Wan.

Plo Koon:

Not gonna lie, Barriss could do worse

Like, they’re not a good match, exactly? They have basically nothing in common. But I don’t think he’d do more harm than good.

Unfortunately “better than Anakin Skywalker” does not a training bond make.

Like Luminara, he has that steady and soothing presence that makes your heart rate settle just from being near him. He’s calm, he’s quiet, he’s deliberate. He values the lives of those around him. He’s firm but fair, and not so married to the Code that he lets it stop him from being kind.

In some ways, Plo would be very good for her. He is certainly not afraid of his own emotions; he’s very much from the “emotion, yet peace” school of Jedi philosophy, and we see him several times calmly, verbally assuring people he cares about of that care. That would do a world of good for Barriss’ inferiority complex. 

A model of “I can feel these things without that meaning I am doomed to fall, because feelings and actions are not the same thing, and I can control how I act” could also do a lot of good…in peacetime. 

In war, I think that model would fail as surely as Luminara’s attempts to do the same thing. We know she subscribes to this same philosophy, and the fact is that there was a war on and Barriss was as good as a Knight and the best model in the galaxy is no good if he’s not there. 

And ultimately, in a lot of other ways, Plo Koon would be a terrible match for Barriss. He’s…too much of a “take a deep breath and take your time” mentor, for someone like her who learns quickly and thoroughly and needs mental challenges and puzzles.

She’s also still a strategist and advance planner, and Plo is a mechanic and a fighter pilot. He’d either be too “don’t think just act, improvise, split-second decisions” or she would chafe and get frustrated, and frankly be bored to tears, with Plo’s slow and steady approach. Either too intense or not intense enough; they’re a bad combination, though I do think they’d get along very well as colleagues and friends. Just not an apprenticeship.

Like honestly the main issue here is that he’s too similar to Luminara in the ways that would let him function well with Barriss and she has a lot more of those qualities than he does.

Aayla Secura:

I mean…I guess?

Aayla’s a bit of a random choice I just like her. I really don’t think they’d get along well at all.

Barriss would certainly get the mental exercise she needs with Aayla, there’d be supply challenges and tactical lessons, and those clearly-worded expectations would be there as another positive, but…

Aayla’s a good Jedi, a good leader, she’d have made an excellent Master

Just not to Barriss Offee.

She’s a little too brisk, a little too hard around the edges. In short, a little too much of a soldier and a little too close to the “okay now get over it” school of Jedi philsophy to work well with someone as insecure and anxious as Barriss.

Shaak Ti:

Look, let’s be frank here. Luminara is Barriss’ master because she’s meant to be, it’s a universal constant. Anything else is just wrong.

But if Barriss were to have a different Master, my vote would be Shaak Ti.

Again, this is because in a lot of ways she’s similar to Luminara, and there’s a REASON Barriss is Luminara Unduli’s padawan.

Shaak Ti is soft-spoken and kind. Reassuring. She speaks calmly, doesn’t raise her voice except to be heard from a distance, protects and cares for those beneath her.

She’s gentle but firm when necessary; but also more focused on the spirit of the law than the letter. She’s reasonable. She knows when and how to bend rules in the interest of doing the right thing.

She’s a little more centered and self-accepting than Luminara; she trusts her instincts as well as her judgement, rather than desperately suppressing her emotions. She doesn’t let the people around her get away with hiding their thoughts, either.

She listens, and she thinks before she speaks or acts. That would be good, for Barriss Offee The Obsessive Planner.

But again, this isn’t an ideal pairing. While I’m sure Shaak Ti would find and encourage ways for Barriss to learn and grow–and apprenticing under a Council member often stationed on Kamino would be a fantastic opportunity to solve and learn logistics and interpersonal problems, and a great chance to train as a healer properly–I think she might be a little too centered.

Barriss’ insecurities aren’t going away. Her mind works quickly, she overthinks, she doubts. While Shaak Ti is a phenomenal listener, she’s also…imposing, even more than Luminara, and she doesn’t have as easy a sense of humor. She’s very regal, very focused.

A model that encourages Barriss to be more serious, to spend even more time inside her own head, is the last thing she needs.

Qui-Gon:

Literally the only thing you asked, anon, I’m deeply sorry.

I’m also sorry to say this but I think Qui-Gon Jinn would be a TERRIBLE master for Barriss “made of insecurities” Offee

Qui-Gon Jinn has the least chill of anyone in the galaxy.

Qui-Gon is, in fact, the kind of guy who drags a nine-year-old slave from Tatooine to a desert world, plops him in front of the Jedi Council, and openly says "this is the Chosen One, he will save us all, his name’s Anakin by the way.”

Barriss feels crushing pressure to be Good Enough To Meet Her Master’s Expectations when her master is Luminara and the expectations are “fulfill this specific mission with minimal casualties and come home alive”. She does not need Qui-Gon Jinn in her life.

I don’t think his...near-dismissal of people around him worrying over the future, would be good for Barriss either? Like sure, on the one hand, someone gently telling her to focus on the present and embrace the Living Force is good. But Luminara did actually teach her how to meditate, and the problem here is that Barriss’ concerns are valid. 

There is a point at which “trust in the Force, a solution will present itself” is no longer acceptable advice, and that point is probably somewhere around Umbara.

In fact, far from his chill, the only argument I can think of in favor of pairing him with Barriss is his willingness to challenge the Council. Showing her that the Council can be wrong, and that she can disagree with authority without being a Sith? That could have been incredibly valuable.

However that only works if she otherwise feels connected to him, and I don’t...think she would. Qui-Gon is kind of incredibly insensitive for someone who constantly talks about being mindful of the present; the arrogance and detachment of the Jedi is kind of a major theme of TPM. I think her timidity would frustrate him more than inspire him to compassion, and I very much think his advice about her anxieties and insecurities would be that old Jedi mainstay “well stop being anxious” ie, You Must Trust In The Force.

Ultimately I really do think that Luminara is the best option for Barriss. That’s part of what makes the failure of their bond so tragic.

[mmoxie]

this post got long im yelling about nerds added a readmore after the fact

sometimes i read a phrase and get a little hung up on it and today’s phrase is “emotional depth”

you spend 20 years growing up as a very confused and upset person in rural north carolina and you come out of that experience with, let’s say

fairly shallow means of expressing yourself

but i say that to say that i’m so grateful that i found out who i am and took the time to like, think about it

but sometimes i have really shallow dumbass reactions to/interpretations of things still, here five years after getting out of all that

and what i want to get at is that a culture of reaction RELIES on that shallowness to succeed- it doesn’t need or want to reach deep into your psyche, it wants to start you out with your primordial fight or flight reflexes right there at the surface so they can just provoke you into reactionary behavior

and honestly you can read that whole last paragraph as just “and this is why cishet dudes bad” if you want because frankly thats what theyre wrapped up in

that’s why we have these conversations where it’s like “you shouldn’t have to be convinced to care about others, robert” or “it doesn’t make sense to fly into a violent rampage over sports, jake” or “other people don’t punch walls when they’re confused, mike”

the reactionary movement that exists right now has reached an inch underneath that surface, found the bottom, and said “hey mike they’re telling you not to punch walls, are they in charge of you?” and mike, with no enrichment in his life, suddenly feels he’s super right about punching walls because that’s the message he’s just received and he suddenly has an opponent to his wall-punching instead of someone in his life who he might, if he wasn’t such a shallow, violent dipshit, mutually talk to about problems, because friendship features that sometimes, but he wouldn’t know because his friendships all revolve around the kind of mindlessly cruel shit that ender’s older brother does in that homophobe’s book about child soldiers and xenophobia

before i digress too hard let’s whip back around to emotional depth because here’s the thing

shallow emotional depth is more or less the same thing as shallow intellectual depth, in that it limits the way you can interact with the people around you in a way that leaves you vulnerable to all kinds of shitty influence

think of any unwashed walking 2.1 GPA named Gavin you ever knew who talked a big talk about how smart he was but refused to treat himself any better than the bare minimum because he’s getting his enrichment elsewhere

and by elsewhere, i mean 4chan, where he was conversing heatedly with other “intellectuals” all night and getting shitty sleep because someone on /lit/ thinks that some volume of naruto is better than a book he hasn’t actually read but he feels a strange personal obligation to defend because of the hallowed halls (that he hasn’t attended) that the book allegedly represents

that’s someone who has mistaken having lots of opinions for a certain kind of depth, they’ve cultivated an ability to react to everything by always being ready to be contrary to anything, taking the side of a fucking ghost instead of anything in material reality every time if it means they get to run their mouth

that’s the same damn thing, beat for beat, as Big Lloyd who everyone thinks is great at football but he’s always warming the bench because he gets too aggro on the field and has to be called off and replaced near about every game even though he’s “fine” during practice, except he’s getting his ghosts from his dad and his coach instead of anonymous “intellectuals” online

shallowness is shallowness and what it rounds out to is an inability to play ball with other people, and it’s not something you’re a victim of, it’s something you settle into, something you get comfortable with, something that satisfies you in the most fleeting kind of way, you’ve always got to to do it again, you’ve always got to heat up and lash out because god knows it’s the only way you get to express yourself to anyone anymore and that’s

bad

for you

and for them

and for anyone in a ten foot radius

and this isn’t all to say that it takes depth of intellect or depth of emotion to be a good person it’s to say that we’re all digging the same damn hole and finding pieces of ourselves in it, and there’s no reward for digging a shallow hole and laying in it, you’ll never find anything new, you’ll never change, and maybe other people dig deep enough and in so many different directions that they’ve got connecting tunnels and whole networks and there you are, on the surface, gone from them, so removed from their experience that you can’t relate to them anymore even though you started at the same depth

and then someone comes along and says “those people deeper down are FUCKERS and you’re not missing anything” and you BELIEVE IT because it means you don’t have to dig, and you’re comfortable not digging

and everyone else who made that decision is comfortable too and then all of them get together and decide that those fuckers and their useless nuance and willingness to converse and openness and communication and warmth are Doing This All Wrong and it’s time to Teach Those Fuckers A Lesson

and then what do we get

we get shallow, awful men, who see someone in a stressful public position explaining something, and they read the explanation, and none of it resonates with them, and based on the very first sentence they pose a question contrary to the entire premise of what’s being said

and when their tactic of aggressively delivered complete nonsense fails to land and they’re dismissed for being stupid dipshits

well, that’s a victory, because all they know is punching and punching back, and you got punched and didn’t punch back, so they won

and i am just so mad and i just hate so much that i see this every single goddamn day of my life whether it’s in person or it’s online and i don’t HAVE a solution to this it just fucking sucks

it was established by shallow dipshits at the dawn of time and their shallow dipshit sons have upheld that tradition ever since

ironically in the name of a total lack of depth in their person the roots of their behavior are some of the deepest i’ve ever seen and that

makes me wanna yell, and yell, and yell, until i die

but because i have this blog to vent on, i won’t, and i’ve gone and expressed myself now, and gotten it out of my system, and i’m fine

[sincero-69]

Is the Job of a Lawyer Easy?

Does a lawyer have to be smart or an expert in the law? Is it necessary to possess impeccable manners and be well spoken? Is it necessary to be a detail-oriented individual who can keep track of everyone? Is it necessary to possess intellectual abilities? The jobs of a lawyer: advocaat arbeidsrecht. As they appear in our popular dictionaries, usually don't sound appealing. However, I think that the job of a lawyer can be very interesting and fulfilling if one finds the right type of lawyer.

Is the job of a lawyer easy? For a fact, it isn't easy. A good lawyer must be able to think clearly and apply the appropriate legal tactics in any given situation. There will always be situations when the lawyer must apply his or her mind and strategy to solve a particular problem or to arrive at a just decision. The bottom line is: a lawyer has to think.

Can you imagine trying to come up with a solution to a difficult situation like custody of your children? This is probably the most difficult problem, a lawyer has to face. He or she has to represent the interests of his or her client, the child, in order to achieve the best possible outcome for the latter. As you may already know, there are always emotionally charged moments when a lawyer is called upon to defend a case. Sometimes, the parents even try to persuade their children to side with them, which makes things complicated.

As you know, these cases are very sensitive and can easily touch the heart of any human being. In order to protect the best interests of the child involved, the lawyer has to put aside all feelings and primate politics: arbeidsrechtjuristen. You, on the other hand, are merely a simpleton. How can you possibly expect to convince anyone about something as minute as custody of your child? How can you stand in front of a judge or jury and convince him or her that your spouse or your ex-spouse is at fault for your current predicament?

What does this have to do with your career as a lawyer? The answer is that it doesn't have anything to do with your career. If you have the skill to convince the people who matter, you have everything you need to make a great living as a lawyer. All you have to do is to learn the ins and outs of child custody law.

You should never lose sight of the fact that your job as a lawyer is not to bring your clients into court. It is your job to help them out as much as possible. However, the more you learn about child custody law and how it affects your clients and their children, the more successful you will be as a lawyer. Once you understand the intricacies of such a case and the things you have to prepare for it, you will become a better lawyer and help more clients than ever before.

Now that you know what it takes to win a good case, you may wonder if winning a case is easy. In the first place, winning requires you to do your research. You must understand the ins and outs of child custody laws and how they affect the lives of your clients. Then you must be prepared to present your case with all the facts and the ability to argue convincingly on your behalf. Only then can you have a chance of winning your case.

So is the job of a lawyer easy? There really isn't any easy way to find success as a lawyer: arbeidsrecht advocaat Roermond. But the more you study, the better equipped you will be to succeed in this field. So start studying more about child custody laws and become a better lawyer.

[ajanreginalduk-blog]

Ajan Reginald  A Cure for the Broken Heart ?

 Ajan Reginald As start-up ideas go, this has to be one of the best: Ajan Reginald wants to mend broken hearts.

Medically speaking, that is.

Heart disease affects about 30 million people globally, causes an estimated 4 million deaths per year in Europe, and is the primary cause of death in the developed world. Although modern medicines can provide a degree of relief, the harsh reality is that today there is no cure.

But there may be. Ajan (Chicago, Zurich, 2003-2005) is the founder and CEO of Cell Therapy Limited (CTL), a biotech firm he started in 2009 to experiment with stem cells as a way to fix damaged heart tissue.

“It was my dream to start a company that melds great science with great business to produce great benefits,” said Ajan.

It doesn’t hurt that his cofounder is Professor Sir Martin Evans, a Nobel laureate who first isolated and grew embryonic stem cells at Cambridge University back in the 1980s.

“Martin has a vast depth of understanding, expertise, and intuition, all of which are fantastic leadership qualities. But he also brings strong contributory assets that make him a brilliant person to start a company with,” said Ajan.

For the first six months, it was only the two of them. “We were a genuine start-up, doing everything ourselves: designing experiments, registering the company, raising funds, and setting up the website. We were certainly unique in that we had a Nobel Prize winner answering the phones.”

CTL has since identified a way to treat people with the most severely damaged hearts—those whose only hope is to receive a transplant.

“We’re treating people who have a life expectancy of less than one year—with 70 percent one-year mortality,” said Ajan.

And this is where the “great science” part of his dream comes in to play.

CTL’s proprietary cell therapy claims unique properties. “It’s a paradigm-shifting technology. Today’s medicines can only keep a patient from getting worse. We’re looking, for the first time, at a medicine that is able to regenerate a damaged organ.”

Heart failure develops after a person has a heart attack or when the arteries of a person’s heart are blocked. The heart muscle gets damaged and forms nonfunctioning scar tissue. Without treatment, this scar tissue expands, leading to heart failure and a significant chance of death within a few years.

CTL’s stem-cell therapy can be injected into scar tissue to reduce the size of the scar, stimulate repair, improve the heart’s ability to function, and mitigate the likelihood of heart failure.

Although there are other biotech firms working to produce stem cells for the broad treatment of diseases—using the same stem cell for, say, the treatment of lung disease or a chronic joint problem—CTL is unique in that it has been able to identify and isolate heart-specific stem cells.

The firm has already completed successful clinical trials, which brings us to Ajan’s vision of a “great business.”

The fast-growing high-tech stem-cell market is projected to reach about $20 billion in five years, and CTL hopes to tap into that market. Last year, in what was an unusual move for a biotech start-up, the firm ran an external fund-raising campaign that included crowdfunding; the goal was to raise £1 million. Ajan anticipated it would take up to three months to hit his target.

It took just ten days.

“The fact that we met our goal in such a short time shows that exceptional science for the benefit of society is an exciting investment proposition. This outcome is consistent with my BCG experience: clients with a focus first and foremost on quality produced highly differentiated products with demonstrable benefits, and profits followed. BCG gave me the analytical skills to understand these important drivers of great companies; hopefully I can replicate these characteristics in our small firm.”

In CTL’s case, demonstrating benefits demands a meticulousness in the way it generates value for heart patients. “Scrupulousness in value-generation for our patients translates into value-generation for our shareholders,” Ajan says.

In addition to Sir Martin Evans, CTL’s leadership team boasts other prominent figures, including Rhodri Morgan, a former first minister of Wales, Mubasher Sheikh, a former transplant surgeon and the current head of Permira health care, and Lord Digby Jones, a former UK minister of state for trade and development.

“It’s important to surround yourself with smart, critical people and to listen to them. Again, this is something I learned at BCG. I’m fortunate to have an exceptional board and executive team, and I am careful to listen, but ultimately I’m responsible for the decisions, good or bad. And I’m happy to make those calls.”

Ajan likens his role among these iconoclasts to his position as a central midfielder in field hockey. (He currently represents the England Masters at the international level.) “In other words,” he says, “I’m expected to see everything, anticipate everything, and cover every inch of the pitch. I’ve got to be a total team player—attacking, defending, and fulfilling whatever role is required by the team.”

“CTL is like most biotech companies in that it requires a CEO to understand and connect the science with the biotech business,” says Ajan. “However, where CTL may be different is the dual-fold novelty and ambiguity of both our field of regenerative medicine and CTL’s unique approach. The novel approach in an unproven field and being at the fore-front. There is no path to follow. Therefore, we believe an in-depth level of science and business expertise is necessary to make these critical (and novel) decisions.

“BCG was the best preparation for this role. I found my BCG experience very challenging and the hardest job I’ve ever done. But in hindsight, it was great training. The intellectual capacity needed, the speed of thought and execution required, and the unrelenting pressure and ‘stretch’ is how I developed my capacity to perform critical operations under high stress. BCG trained me to think and to work in a high-performance team. I learned to be data driven and to recognize excellent analysis and the singular value of insight from that analysis. Ultimately, leaving BCG was right for me. But the hard-won BCG skills gave me the ultimate confidence to use data to make the most critical decisions.

“My experiences from high-performance sports teams and BCG are complementary. High-level hockey is fast and dynamic; tactical thinking on the fly is very hard. But for me, the single well-executed tactical decision that wins the game is compelling. In contrast, business is more strategic and tactical, and there’s more time to think. However, it’s much more difficult to produce ‘game winners’ in business, and it’s much harder to build a high-performance team. That may be because the time frames are longer, prolonged years of rigor are required, and the rewards are less connected with actions.

“When we started CTL, we decided to combine the teamwork of high-performance sports with the strategy and execution required to excel in business. Therefore, our team is nontraditional—perhaps to match our nontraditional scientific approach.

All of which, he says, is borne out in the success of CTL.

“If your high-performance team can work synergistically, excellence is a more likely outcome—be it at BCG, international hockey, or a biotech firm. I truly believe there are few limitations on the productivity of such organizations. You also need luck, however, and then you just might develop the world’s first regenerative medicine.”

CTL, which is based in Cardiff in the UK, now has 30 employees, holds more than 100 patents, and is affiliated with labs at leading universities in Oxford, Toronto, Denmark, Greece, and China.

“Our goal is to treat 100,000 critically ill patients within the next five years,” Ajan concluded. “Realizing the great responsibility of lifesaving medicines, we focus on bringing Heartcel to market rapidly. It’s an amazing time—simultaneously frightening, humbling, and awe-inspiring.”

[multi-wild-imagines]

Just How Strong is Nero?

(So forgive me that this is not something that may appeal to anyone but I really wanted to share my ideas of this and my own observation.)

Let’s start off with the lowest CP9 member in the Doriki ranking, aside from Spandam himself, Kalifa ranks at 630 Doriki. What’s the point of that observation? Well Kalifa has mastered all 6 of the 6 Powers whereas Nero has only mastered 4 out of the 6 Powers.  Aside from that let us continue

I’ve been able to identify that each individual train on the Puffing Tom, has 24 seats and seeing that the navy/spies are sitting in twos. The seats are double-sided which did give me 12 of each side and together of course 24. And than 24 times the number of men per seat so 2 giving me a total of 48 men; that of course is an estimate depending on the sizes of men and space available but that is the best I can round it up to.  So now the order of the 7 cars from the end up starts with government officials and Jerry in the 7th, the 5th car with 40 (that will become important later) navy men and T-Bone, the 4th holds Wanze, the 3rd with Nero, the 2nd with the 4 CP9 members and of course the 1st with Robin. The 6th car held a few government officials along with both Usopp and Franky. As stated by Corgi (Government official) “They get stronger the further up you go in the train.” Nero falls behind Wanze who he himself is quite strong as evidenced by how Sanji who was having a hard time using his legs (that couldn’t hit Wanze) and had to rely on his acrobatic skills and using kitchen knifes to cut all of the ramen from Wanze, and then beating him senseless. It was thanks to the ramen armor that enabled Wanze to block Sanji’s kicks but aside from that Nero is the next one up indicating that he is stronger than Wanze.

His fight with Franky is the only time we see his fighting skills and well even his personality. He is shown to be quite nimble and flexible physically so that becomes an advantage to him. People has pointed him out to be gullible due to Franky telling him to look behind his back (Nero’s back) and sucker punching him. I mean that is something anyone would do even for an assassin I’d say the problem was that he wasn’t on guard, so I am taking that out of consideration that he is easily fooled.

So going back to the number of men per car; and once again as stated by Corgi the 5th car held 40 men so that allows me to know that the car can hold 40 men and potentially more. So with just the average Doriki for a navy men is 10; giving me 400. I’d say Nero’s Doriki does not go any lower than 400. I may be using this as a pointless logic but it does make sense in its own way to just give an indication for just Nero himself with just 4 of the 6 powers too.

I also was thinking about who would win in a fight between Nero and Kalifa. I’d like to think that it would be Nero (for that he is a personal favorite of mine). Getting rid of my own bias towards Nero I still think he’d have a chance. Say this is prior to Kalifa eating the Bubble-Bubble Fruit to make it more ‘fair’. Kalifa is quite strong herself but also riddled with little flaws. And in no way am I calling her dumb but it is what it is. Intellectually I believe Nero to be a tad bit smarter as in tactical and processing; I do say that for that Kalifa takes a while to understand that ‘monster’ was not Nami whom she thought it was. I mean it’s connection she made cause it was only Nami and her there so yeah it was a silly observation. But she’s not as smart as her secretary persona had seemed.  He may have a slight advantage with his pistols but only if he is able to bound Kalifa in place or slow her down or even fool her. It seems he can quickly identify weaknesses within others but with a bit more of fighting and time. I also do say that Nero may be smarter due to one silly reason; he knew what a Centaur was. Yes silly but the years that One Piece takes place in isn’t necessarily a period of vast information and easily accessible knowledge. It’s an extremely asinine claim but in my mind it makes sense. But in the end Nero may be stuck on the defensive side and subdued by Kalifa eventually.

With all of this I have concluded that Nero is defiantly under 600 and over 400 using the 10 Doriki per navy men in the cars. So with this I say that he is around 550 to 450 Doriki.

Nero is quite strong without a doubt but that is compared to regular people. Regardless he isn’t well loved or well cared for but I still think he was an interesting one indeed.

And let me say that I did use the Manga to get my information and so; this is merely but my own observation of this silly question.

~Noelle~ 

[starlitsea]

Hmmm, random Enterprise episode is on TV …

Oh, this is that mini-arc where Trip transfers off the ship because he and T’Pol are having problems.

Trip, stop being a giant meanie. You love her, you idiot.

Malcolm’s like: I thought I had left the gang.

Random Section dude: You can never leave.

Archer, stop fucking backseat driving the mind meld. Ugh.

Klingon: Your paper was super awesome, please help us. Sorry about the kidnapping.

Archer: You’re not Trip.

Trip: LOL, everyone hates you because you’re being a hardass because you’re trying to forget T’Pol.

OMG, it’s the FUCKING MIND SPACE SCENE. I LOVE THEM. IS THIS A DAYDREAM? PLEASE LEAVE. YOU LEAVE. OMG, YOU TWO STUPID KNUCKLEHEADS, ILU IDIOTS.

Malcolm, you’re a remarkably horrible liar.

Intellectual Klingon stealing medical database and putting it on a flash drive … randomly shooting someone, yeah, okay. Phlox is sure having a day.

Malcolm is so conflicted. HE CAN’T LIE TO ARCHER. He is so upset.

This commercial for Xena is so terrible? Like, SO SO TERRIBLE? It makes Xena seem so dull and Xena is many things but NOT dull.

Yup, Klingons.

Warpdrive will be repaired in 6 hours. Archer is so not happy. Everybody misses Trip.

Aw, Klingon pet.

Yeah, don’t try to become more like humans. It’s not smart. We will fuck everything up including your cranial ridges.

Hoshi is having weird dreams. ABOUT TRIP. “There was almost a romantic quality about it.” T’POL IS FREAKING OUT. FREEEEAAAAAKIIIIIIINNNG OUT. So many reasons.

Aw, Malcolm and Archer face-off. Wow, Archer, taking control. (Also, Malcolm, DON’T YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING?! BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, YOUR JOB???) Malcolm is so contrite and gutted??? There’s some weird subtext here that I don’t think I ever saw before?

This security dude is like OMG WHAT IS THE SECRET?! Archer: Get out and leave me with the traitor.

Archer, you are the WORST at convincing someone.

We tried to kidnap Dr. Soong. He was under heavy guard. Well then.

Trip, you’re on the wrong ship.

Malcolm is angsting so much about Archer. I never even considered this pairing? Like, uhhh???

Malcolm is just shouting. You need your tactical officer! I can be useful!!!! OMG, slumped in the corner.

T’Pol: The ship’s OS is glitching.

Archer: Travis, just drive the ship really fast, would you?

Travis: Uhhh? That seems like … a bad idea?

Archer: Do it.

That was a horrible cliffhanger? Like, the music has been so overly dramatic this episode? But the ending was not even that cliffhangery? I mean, people were going to turn in to see how the Trip/T’Pol situation turned out. And Malcolm chilling his heels in the brig. And Trip’s transfer, LOL. Oh, and I guess whether they got Phlox back and whether he helped the Klingons. But the way they ended the episode was sort of … Archer is going up in the lift. 

[beerrito]

yo, hey -- i want you to take every single one of those asks, all of them, all 50 of them, and i want a full report on Neicoi, chop chop

YOU CRAZY NUT. Ok, here goes a long fuckin’ thing on my drunk asshole.

1. How does your character think of their father? What do they hate and love about him? What influence - literal or imagined - did the father have?

She doesn’t really think much about him, because she never knew him. She has no respect for him because to her he was just some guy who came around and didn’t care enough to stay for her or her mother. Even though he did love her mother, he isn’t there now, so to Neicoi he’s scum. He’s had zero influence on her life.

2. Their mother? How do they think of her? What do they hate? Love? What influence - literal or imagined - did the mother have?

Though they disagree heavily on most things, Neicoi loves her mother dearly. She sees her when she can, and although a lot of the time they end up arguing (in other words, Neicoi arguing while her mother sits by peacefully), she secretly enjoys all the time they spend with each other, little as it may be. She admires how strong her mother is, though she’d never say it to her face. She takes that as an example of how she should be.

3. Brothers, sisters? Who do they like? Why? What do they despise about their siblings?

Neicoi has no siblings. At least, not that she knows of. There could be someone out there, a half sibling, but who knows?

4. What type of discipline was your character subjected to at home? Strict? Lenient?

While Neicoi’s mother wasn’t as strict as many of the other Gerudo women, Neicoi had a very strict upbringing by the rest of the tribe. She was trained since she was very young, and there was little room for error and no time for play.

5. Were they overprotected as a child? Sheltered?

Hardly. It’s a cruel world, so deal with it.

6. Did they feel rejection or affection as a child?

Her mother was certainly affectionate towards her, so there was no rejection there. However, she didn’t get along well with much of anyone else so she didn’t exactly get the same feeling from others.

7. What was the economic status of their family?

Neicoi’s mother is a higher-ranking individual, so they did well. Not that it would have mattered anyways. Thievery was always part of it. It wouldn’t have mattered if they were the lowest of the low, because she would have gotten what they needed.

8. How does your character feel about religion?

While she follows the same beliefs as the rest of her people, she hardly worships by any means. Neicoi prefers to pave her own path rather than pray to a goddess that may or may not answer. She’s the type to make a smartass remark to the sky as if speaking to someone up there.

9. What about political beliefs?

I’m so fucking brain dead right now I don’t even know how to answer this one right now.

10. Is your character street-smart, book-smart, intelligent, intellectual, slow-witted?

She’s street smart, and as far as all things battle and war-related you know she’s got it down. But as far as anything else goes she’s exceptionally dim-witted.

11. How do they see themselves: as smart, as intelligent, uneducated?

Neicoi thinks she’s the smartest cookie in the jar of course. Even though that’s far from the truth.

12. How does their education and intelligence – or lack thereof - reflect in their speech pattern, vocabulary, and pronunciations?

Perhaps her inherent need to insult everyone? Rofl–

13. Did they like school? Teachers? Schoolmates?

What little schooling she had she hated. She was always causing problems. Most of her time was taken up by training, which she loved.

14. Were they involved at school? Sports? Clubs? Debate? Were they unconnected?

Doesn’t really apply.

15. Did they graduate? High-School? College? Do they have a PHD? A GED?

N/A

16. What does your character do for a living? How do they see their profession? What do they like about it? Dislike?

She’s a thief and a drunk. Seriously she does nothing anymore, and she hates it, which is why she drinks so damn much. She misses having a purpose. She loathes her life because of it. 

17. Did they travel? Where? Why? When?

She’ll move about Hyrule as she pleases, but mostly she moves between town and the desert.

18. What did they find abroad, and what did they remember?

Disappointment and booze.

19. What were your character’s deepest disillusions? In life? What are they now?

Just because you have it good now doesn’t mean it will always be that way.

20. What were the most deeply impressive political or social, national or international, events that they experienced?

Ganon’s fall, haha.

21. What are your character’s manners like? What is their type of hero? Whom do they hate?

She has no heroes, and she hates virtually everyone. She’s an extremely moody, rude person. She treats no one with respect unless it’s earned, but there hasn’t been anyone who fit that description in a long time.

22. Who are their friends? Lovers? ‘Type’ or ‘ideal’ partner?

Neicoi doesn’t really have friends anymore. Differences in opinions and beliefs saw to that. Eventually in this reboot (IF WE EVER GET TO IT, SNOOF–) there’ll be a thing with Dark Link. She doesn’t really have a type, as relationships aren’t really a thing for her. But ideally someone who’s strong, who doesn’t back down, and is a challenge for her.

23. What do they want from a partner? What do they think and feel of sex?

She wants and expects nothing. Sex is nice, but she doesn’t think much of it.

24. What social groups and activities does your character attend? What role do they like to play? What role do they actually play, usually?

AHAHAHA–

25. What are their hobbies and interests?

Drinking. Fighting. Is there anything else? She’ll pick a fight with someone just because.

26. What does your character’s home look like? Personal taste? Clothing? Hair? Appearance?

She doesn’t have a home anymore. She stays where she pleases. As far as appearance, she has a stupid amount of red hair that she wears up, dark skin and gold eyes, and dresses similarly to the rest of her people, but in black because she’s a moody outsider. Jewelry varies. She’s built pretty nice, curvy and toned, but admittedly isn’t as much so as she used to be.

27. How do they relate to their appearance? How do they wear their clothing? Style? Quality?

She gives zero shits about her clothes. It’s whatever, really.

28. Who is your character’s mate? How do they relate to him or her? How did they make their choice?

Once DL makes it into the picture again– They hate each other? LMAO. Shit just sort of happened. After lots of bickering and hate.

29. What is your character’s weaknesses? Hubris? Pride? Controlling?

She’s stubborn and prideful.

30. Are they holding on to something in the past? Can he or she forgive?

Forgiveness is not her strong suit. She’s still bitter about the current state of Hyrule and the fact that she no longer has a place in it.

31. Does your character have children? How do they feel about their parental role? About the children? How do the children relate?

Neicoi as a mother scares me deeply.

32. How does your character react to stress situations? Defensively? Aggressively? Evasively?

Aggressively, for certain. She will lash out heavily.

33. Do they drink? Take drugs? What about their health? 

Point her to the nearest bar. She’s always drinking these days.

34. Does your character feel self-righteous? Revengeful? Contemptuous?

She shows contempt for every living thing, tbh.

35. Do they always rationalize errors? How do they accept disasters and failures?

Failure isn’t really an option. She’ll see to it that she makes it happen. And nothing is ever her fault.

36. Do they like to suffer? Like to see other people suffering?

YOU WOULD THINK SHE DOES but no she doesn’t like to suffer. She likes to see those suffer whom she thinks deserves it.

37. How is your character’s imagination? Daydreaming a lot? Worried most of the time? Living in memories?

Neicoi would prefer to forget. And she rarely daydreams.

38. Are they basically negative when facing new things? Suspicious? Hostile? Scared? Enthusiastic?

Always negative. Always hostile. She goes into things expecting the worst and isn’t surprised when it happens.

39. What do they like to ridicule? What do they find stupid?

Everything and everyone?? If she finds anything to pick at she will. And if she can’t she’ll call you names anyways.

40. How is their sense of humor? Do they have one?

What humor–

41. Is your character aware of who they are? Strengths? Weaknesses? Idiosyncrasies? Capable of self-irony?

She thinks the best of herself. She thinks she’s the strongest, the smartest, the best looking. Her ego is huge. She thinks she has no weaknesses, which is often her downfall.

42. What does your character want most? What do they need really badly, compulsively? What are they willing to do, to sacrifice, to obtain?

She just wants to have a purpose again. She needs that. She doesn’t really have anything to sacrifice, so she’ll go all in. Unless her mother came into the picture, then that might put a halt in things.

43. Does your character have any secrets? If so, are they holding them back?

No secrets.

44. How badly do they want to obtain their life objectives? How do they pursue them?

She sees no way to get what she wants, so she does nothing.

45. Is your character pragmatic? Think first? Responsible? All action? A visionary? Passionate? Quixotic?

All action. She never thinks first, so she ends up in trouble a lot. It didn’t used to be that way. Tactical decisions were her strong suit.

46. Is your character tall? Short? What about size? Weight? Posture? How do they feel about their physical body?

Average height and weight. She’s pretty proud of her body.

47. Do they want to project an image of a younger, older, more important person? Does they want to be visible or invisible?

Currently she wants to be invisible. Just get by. Survive. Leave her alone. But when she does interact, she wants people to be scared of her.

48. How are your character’s gestures? Vigorous? Weak? Controlled? Compulsive? Energetic? Sluggish?

Depends. Sluggish and delayed usually, since she’s often shitfaced. But when she’s sober she’s very controlled.

49. What about voice? Pitch? Strength? Tempo and rhythm of speech? Pronunciation? Accent?

I’ve been trying to find a voice actress for years I’m so pissed– She has a very deep tone of voice. She speaks harshly.

50. What are the prevailing facial expressions? Sour? Cheerful? Dominating?

Resting bitch face.