#objective evaluations

[simplyforensic]

The Evolution of Forensic Psychiatry: Lessons from the Helmuth Hoinka Case

Introduction: The Role of Forensic Psychiatry in Justice Forensic psychiatry has long been an integral part of the judicial process, particularly in assessing the mental state and future dangerousness of criminal offenders. However, the application of forensic psychiatry has evolved significantly over time, shaped by historical cases that reveal both its strengths and vulnerabilities. One such…

[kenzan-brainrot-mp4]

Hello! The twist ending of PYIH kind of shocked me. 'Twas really foolish of me for thinking that for the entirety of Kiryu's saga, Majima has just that twisted obsession with Kiryu, being a "Mad Dog" and all. I came across your PYIH analysis the other day and it really brought home what they were conveying with the ending.

I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the premise of PYIH. Is the sole purpose of Majima's "filming/documentary(?)" is to rehearse telling it to Kiryu? Because if it had been, that would be even crazier.

Oh, and at this point, is it even reasonable right now to interpret their relationship as platonic or brotherly? What do you think?

YEAHHHHH imo I think yakuza kenzan yakuza 3 (rooftop scene) is where we first truly starting seeing a glimpse of a deeper dynamic between Majima and Kiryu that goes beyond the "weird twisted obsession" reading, and we see more examples of it later as the series goes on (gestures at yakuza 5 and IW) but moments like those were decently subtle/blink-and-you'll-miss-it (not to mention they lessen in frequency also probably in part to Majima's lessening screentime throughout the series), but pyih's ending really goes out of its way to ensure that you actually Know how deep and genuine Majima's feelings are, which I am both extremely appreciative of and Kinda Crazy about

I think the whole documentary thing is interesting. Given the fact that they went out of their way to get the equipment/crew/etc. for the "film version", I would say that the Majima's retelling of his story at the studio and at Kiryu's bedside serve different purposes, and that him telling the story on set was not specifically for Kiryu (what Majima plans to do with the "film version" I'm not completely sure, but I guess for now we can assume it's just a project Majima wanted to do while getting Majima Construction back off the ground?) I'd say the premise of pyih is both to retell Majima's story as he presents it to the "general audience" And Kiryu, hence why the game starts with one and ends with the other. It's the same story to everyone, for the mostpart, and the main difference between the two 'versions' is How he presents it (to the cameras/the players/main audience he puts on the fuckass pirate costume and the theatrics, to Kiryu he tells it to him straight, without the extra show stuff for the cameras. We can Assume the story he tells to each audience is practically identical, considering that the cutscene of him telling it to us in the beginning of the game and him telling it to KIryu at the end of the game use identical lines (cough cough in the Japanese audio), but his tone of voice between the two are notably very different)

Uhhhh shoot I don't know if any of that made sense 💀 Point is I think Majima telling the story of pyih is, in fact, meant for Everyone, it's just that Kiryu gets a sort of special, more authentically told version of it if you will (After all, Majima could've just shown Kiryu the film when it was finally done, but instead he went out of his way to tell it to him personally)

As for the question of "is kazumaji canon now", WOO boy. First of all I actually lowkey want to thank you for asking that question, I've been wanting to post about it for a while now but kept putting it off lol. I mulled over this exact question quite a bit during the week-or-so long time period that I was writing most of my analysis after finishing the game, and, despite the fact that I myself am very vocal about liking kazumaji in a romantic scenario/context, I would not personally call it canon, and I say it is still absolutely reasonable to interpret them as platonic.

While many of the aspects we see in their relationship (especially on Majima's end) such as obsession, devotion, etc. etc. are often associated with romantic interest (Especially in fandom spaces), I don't think they have to be considered specifically romantic. People who have read through my posts may remember a while back that I did an analysis of The Sun at 36.5 wondering if the song was written with the intent to represent Majima's feelings towards Kiryu (for the record this was incorrect and the meaning behind it goes past the scope of the game) and I was going pretty insane about it lol. That's because, had the song been written with that in mind, it would've meant with almost 100% certainly that they would be, in fact, canon, and that would've been Insane. However, this is not the case, and other than that theory I had there's nothing else in the games that would specifically state that either one has Explicitly Romantic feelings towards the other. Do they have a very deep and complex relationship, the likes of which they don't share with many other characters? Definitely. Is it explicitly romantic? I wouldn't say so

The main example I would like to bring up to argue against it would be minedai (*cough* my second favorite yakuza ship I fucking Love Mine Yoshitaka so much he's one of my favorites). I'll link this amazing post with all the examples but essentially, while minedai and kazumaji share many of the same themes in their relationship/dynamic (again, obsession, devotion, you get the drill (can you tell Majima and Mine are two of my favorite characters yet LOL)) the main difference between them is that, with minedai, it is basically outright said Multiple Times in Multiple Sources outside of even Yakuza 3 itself that Mine loved Daigo, with words used Specifically to convey strong romantic connotations, a choice rgg went out of their way to make every single time they wrote about them together. Kazumaji, on the other hand, does not use these kinds of words to describe each other, whether it be in words coming from Kiryu and Majima themselves, or official relationship charts, descriptions, etc.

Can feelings including romance be heavily implied without needing to be explicitly stated? Absolutely, but with the way rgg tends to Very Obviously and Explicitly state when characters Are romantically interested in each other, and also simply because there is still (imo) plenty of room to read kazumaji as Not romantic, I wouldn't say it's canon. And for the record, I wanna reiterate that this is coming from someone who is personally very enthusiastic about kazumaji as a ship, so I'm trying to be purely objective here, and that is my verdict (Also this is just a random aside, but I really don't agree with the people who are (unironically) labelling Kiryu and Majima's relationship as "queerbaiting". but that's a whole other discussion entirely)

Thank you for shooting an ask !!

[super-nova5045]

babygirl you are SO physically and mentally unwell

[graveyardgreengarden]

Me: *Pairing name* is bad.

Also me: Wait, what if the pairing is good, then it's the people who distort the pairing, the stupid ones... makes sense. The pairing has potential.

Me: But it's still crap.

[kirabasai]

so as it turns out not only was i peer reviewed for autism on an ao3 comment, i was peer reviewed for autism on an ao3 comment and they were RIGHT.

[halfliife]

it's funny, ember used to even kind of respect me.

[ilovedthestars]

here's the thing. yes, some pieces of art are "better" than others. there are many criteria you can measure that with--technical skill, creativity, clarity, conceptual depth, successful execution of the artist's intentions, etc., and i do think it's useful to clarify which ones you're using as a measuring stick. but like, of course you can evaluate art. of course you can be critical (in the "art critic" sense) of art. (among other things, that's one of the most important ways to get better at making art yourself.)

however. when it comes down to evaluating what gets to count as art. what art even gets to have a seat at the table. i will go to bat for the thing that isn't as "good" every single time.

you can say you think a piece of art is bad. you can say you think it lacked technical skill, or clarity, or conceptual depth, and you consider those important elements of a successful work. i might even agree with you. but if you think that means it doesn't matter, someone is going to die on this hill and it isn't going to be me

[eraserheadadult]

saw the boy and the heron and im desperately resisting the urge to rb anything about it for spoiler reasons. i assume all u weebs are gonna go see it. but ohhhhhhh man movies

[musical-chick-13]

I just am kind of :/ about the idea that "a poor depiction of [x serious topic] can NEVER be harmful, and NOTHING is inherently better or worse than anything else because ALL art is an EQUAL value of neutral." Because like. Y'all (rightfully) get up in arms about Bury Your Gays. Because that particular story patterns reflects a wider societal issue of queer people being seen as Less Important™ or More Disposable. Obviously you can grasp that sometimes things Come Across Really Badly and it's okay to complain about that.

No, killing off a gay character in a show in a hamfisted and narratively-stupid way isn't the same thing as an actual irl hate crime, that's. Ridiculous. But if, say, a woman hates the way women are portrayed through a shallow, misogynistic lens; or black people hate the way black characters are treated in 90% of mainstream stories; or trans people are tired of seeing so many examples of trans characters being A Punchline; or disabled people see yet another depiction of disabled life as An Unending Torturous Death Sentence That Will Rob Them Of The Ability To Be Happy Forever; or people are tired of graphic violence against marginalized characters that doesn't add anything to the story...they're not Doing Purity Culture for criticizing that? Like. They're allowed to be. Uncomfortable. About that.

[drag-on-dragoon]

its kind of insane how there isnt actually a moment in any danganronpa game where junko* sucks

[cakemoney]

i know in jurassic park ian malcolm is supposed to be flirting with dr. sattler but jeff goldblum just gives the character this vibe that makes it feel like he's happy to shoot his shot with anyone but is especially trying to get dr. grant's attention. i choose to believe that after getting off the island he spends a while following the two to their dig making dr. grant nervous and self conscious while dr. sattler is just like honey i think he wants to have a threesome

[sunbeamsoup]

i saw such a bad take about writing and im too much of a lurker to do anything about it but agh!!!!!!!!!!

[ashbur]

one thing about me is that i will Consider the Implications and you can't stop me

[dravidious]

A good while ago, I watched this video about an MtG interaction between Ashaya and Blood Moon, and aside from my usual gripes with Blood Moon's wording, there was something that really bothered me: The comments. Specifically, people failing to understand the beautiful way that the rules handle continuous effects (specifically, continuous effects generated by static abilities). So let's go on a quick* trip through the magical world of card game rules.

And no, it's not about layers.

Continuous effects are when a card is continuously affect the game state; for example, increasing the power of all elves by 1. However, continuous effects also use information about the current game state to determine what exactly they do; for example, the effect above needs to know what creatures on the field are elves. This can cause problems when multiple continuous effects start messing with each other.

Take this card for example:

"The monster(s) with the highest ATK on the field is unaffected by the effects of Spell Cards." That's a perfectly reasonable effect, very intuitive, easy to apply. For example, if the two monsters on the field are these:

Then Blue-Eyes will be unaffected by spells. So if someone plays Dark Hole:

Then Dark Magician will be destroyed, but Blue-Eyes will not. Simple. Now, another very simple question, what happens if someone equips Dark Magician with this:

It gains 700 ATK, which means it has 3200 ATK. Which means it's the highest ATK on the field. Which means that, because of Pole Position, it's unaffected by spell cards. Which means it's no longer affected by Magic Formula. Which means its ATK is 2500 again and thus Blue-Eyes has the highest ATK. Which means it's affected by Magic Formula and gains 700 ATK. Which means it's the highest ATK...

The Yugioh rules address situations like these by saying "Please don't do anything that would start a loop."

And looking at Ashaya + Blood Moon, you might think the same thing would happen:

For clarity, Blood Moon's effect also causes nonbasic lands to lose all their abilities. They didn't write this on the card because they hate you.

So what you might expect to happen is that Ashaya turns itself into a land. Because it's now a land (and not basic), Blood Moon makes it a Mountain and takes away its abilities. But since Ashaya's ability that made it a land is gone, that means it isn't a land anymore. That means that Blood Moon stops applying to it. That means it gets its abilities back. That means it turns itself into a land. So now it's affected by Blood Moon...

But we've all watched the video, so we know that what actually happens is that Ashaya ends up as a land creature with no abilities (except the Mountain ability of T: Add {R}). But what happens when Ashaya's controller (let's call her Amy) plays another creature after Ashaya has lost its abilities? (and let's say there's a +1/+1 counter keeping Ashaya alive)

Well, obviously, nothing will happen; Ashaya no longer has its ability that turns Amy's creatures into lands, so the bear stays a regular creature. And THIS, THIS is the failure to understand layers that INFURIATES me, because obviously, OBVIOUSLY the bear becomes a Land Creature - Mountain Bear!

Unfortunately, if you don't immediately get an intuitive understanding of the beautiful design of the way MtG handles continuous effects, it's actually super unintuitive and hard to explain. Which is why I've come up with a model to help understand why Ashaya's ability is NOT gone, and in fact still applies to the bear even though Blood Moon already made Ashaya lose its abilities.

The way we players are used to understanding the game is through what I'll call the Final Game State, where all the continuous effects have applied to the cards on the field. 99% of the time, the final game state is what matters. In the final game state, Ashaya has no abilities besides T: Add {R}, so it seems like it can't possibly turn the bear into a land. But this way of viewing the game is flawed: If Ashaya truly doesn't have its ability, then it shouldn't be a land. But if it isn't a land, then Blood Moon doesn't apply... How do we avoid the loop?

Let's go back to the fundamental problem of continuous effects: They affect the game state, but they also use information from the game state. When two continuous effects are each altering the information that the other uses, we get a loop. The solution: Don't make continuous effects get their information from the final game state.

DISCLAIMER: I just read through the comprehensive rules sections 611 and 613 and while 613.1 matches my understanding for individual objects, there's nothing about how the game state as a whole is determined, and little about determining the existence or nonexistence of continuous effects. However, I'm pretty sure I'm right, so I'm probably right. Anyway,

The core idea of the model is this: There are multiple game states in existence at any given moment. The first is the raw game state, which is dependent purely on the cards on the field, unmodified by continuous effects. All other game states, including the final game state, are dependent on the raw game state (though not always directly dependent)

Let's say we have just an Ashaya on the field, nothing else. To find the final game state, we start from the raw game state: Ashaya is a 0/0 legendary creature - avatar, with its 2 printed abilities. From here, we find all the continuous effects that exist that haven't been applied yet. There are 2, generated by Ashaya's abilities: One that turns it into a Forest, and another that sets its power/toughness. We apply the Forest one first because of layers (not important).

Normally, we think of "applying a continuous effect" as modifying the game state. But in this model, we instead create a new game state, equal to the raw game state plus the application of the continuous effect. Let's call this "game state 2". It's important to note that game state 2 is dependent on the raw game state, which still exists. In game state 2, Ashaya is a 0/0 legendary land creature - forest avatar with 3 abilities (the new one being T: Add {G}). Now, just like last time, we look for continuous effects that haven't been applied yet. Ashaya's p/t setting ability creates a p/t setting effect, so we'll apply that.

Just like last time, we create a new game state by taking game state 2 and applying the continuous effect. Now we have game state 3, which is dependent on game state 2, which is dependent on the raw game state. In this state, Ashaya is a 1/1 with the same types and abilities from game state 2. Now there's no more continuous effects left that haven't been applied, so we're done, and game state 3 is the final game state.

Wow! That was a lot of work to find the final game state! So what happens if Amy plays a Runeclaw Bear now? Well, that gives us a different raw game state, and since everything is dependent on the raw game state, we need to throw out all the work we did and start from scratch. This sounds like a huge pain in the butt, but usually not much changes. In this case, the new final game state looks very similar to the old one; we just add a bear and turn it into a forest. But that's not technically the way the rules handle it. In the rules, it goes through the whole process, evaluating every continuous effect and how each one applies to every object.

For example, let's say we have Ashaya and Blood Moon, and Ashaya has a +1/+1 counter on it so it doesn't die. Raw game state: Ashaya has its printed characteristics and is 0/0. Game state 2 - Ashaya type change: Ashaya is a forest land creature. Game state 3 - Blood Moon type change: Ashaya is a mountain land creature with no abilities (except T: Add {R}). Game state 4 - +1/+1 counter: Ashaya is a 1/1.

Great, that went exactly as expected. Ashaya has now lost its abilities... in the final game state. In the raw game state, Ashaya's abilities are still there! Thus, when Amy plays the Runeclaw Bear, it makes perfect sense that the bear is turned into a land by Ashaya's ability:

Raw game state: Ashaya and the bear have their printed characteristics. Game state 2 - Ashaya type change: Ashaya and the bear are forest lands. Game state 3 - Blood Moon type change: Ashaya and the bear are mountain lands and lose their non-mountain abilities. Game state 4 - +1/+1 counter: Ashaya is a 1/1.

Whenever a new creature enters the battlefield under Amy's control, the game will go through this process starting with the raw game state, and Ashaya will turn that creature into a land. Ashaya's ability isn't gone, it's still right there, printed on the card. Each time the game evaluates continuous effects, the effect from Ashaya's ability always applies before the ability is removed by Blood Moon.

Even though there's never a final game state where Ashaya has its ability, the ability still applies, even to new objects.

*it was not a quick trip

[musical-chick-13]

Regarding the previous post, I think the way I approach trying to evaluate a piece of art is asking "Do I think the positive things I get out of it outweigh the parts of it that I don't like?" And when I call something a "guilty pleasure" song/show/book/piece of media/etc. it's really more in the sense of, "Given who I am as a person, the flaws I've found in this should be complete dealbreakers for me, but somehow they aren't, and it makes me feel like I'm having an identity crisis."