Text
.
#just saw that post with the israelis 🤝 palestinians meme and. no.#that just feels so wrong actually#before that thing gets shared around in my circles i just want yall to actually think#before you immediately smash reblog bc it's a feelgood moment for you.....#this is not the time to do false equivalence in a “positive” way this is not solidarity#there is no solidarity. that is a mistake to interpret it like that. they are literally OCCUPIER vs occupied are you kidding me.#for a bunch of people that constantly drone on about hamas being evil dictators as the seemingly only option etc etc...#yall never pay attention to your own country. put your eyeballs on your own president for once and have a good look at it#westerners should learn to live in the discomfort on this subject. this is the reality of the situation. you keep turning away from#discomfort and nothing will ever get done. nothing will ever change if you retreat into comfort just because you SEE a bad situation#memefying a genocidal campaign is gross actually. and the falafel thing is weird. it's egyptian???#like yeah it's a popular jewish snack it's also a popular muslim snack. it's getting into “jews=israelis” territory again by implication :/
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
@ last post, it sucks that i grown to resent chess (players) so much because some of my favorite childhood memories were just really fun intense casual chess matches
#i was actually one of the top players at my school pff#i didn't like win every match#in fact it was pro'bly pretty even in terms of wins vs. loses and my best friend at the time and chess rival was a lot better#but it was fun to play very chaotically like doing a random opening move every match and making it look like i was worse at the game than i#actually was by doing a bunch of seemingly unrelated moves and false mistakes to catch people off guard#i had way too many matches in our school equivalent to a sports festival end with my opponents storming the table angrily LOL#we'd just sit around and wait for randos to challenge us and every match was a blast at the tiem#honestly pro'bly the one positive memory i have related to school ngl#i think since because internet and info in general was harder to come across a lot of people just played the way they wanted#so i had a lot more fun until the later years when everyone started getting obsessed with memorizing moves and shit#bottom line is that if you want to be friends/rivals with me on a competitive game never do meta shit and just do weird fun strategies
0 notes
Text
Please learn more than just a Phrase.
I don't expect people to be subject matter experts on issues of global politics.
But false equivalency is rampant in online discourse regarding three major conflicts in the world today. I am using the word conflict in this post, however, when applicable, i will use other words to describe specifics. (Nuance folks... it's a thing)
So i start off with an assumption that most people don't understand the basics of most international events. As an american, i only know some of the stuff that is happening within my own nation. This is not an insult to you, dear reader. Rather, it is a position we all must realize we are in. You do not understand most world issues.
You just don't.
you aren't there. it isn't your life. you don't have the academic background.
I saw a post recently calling for "freedom for Palestine, Sudan, and Congo."
And it bothered me. Not because i am opposed to peace, (how is asking for ceasefire a bad thing?) but rather because i believe simplifying the conflicts with this wording showcases the ignorance of the differences.
Not all conflicts are the same.
In palestine, we have a convoluted mess where two groups claim a territory as home. getting into the in-depth story of this conflict takes time. Foundational elements of it take place thousands of years ago, but the conflict itself is only about 75 years old. So it is a long and short story. Currently, the sovereign state of Israel is engaging in a genocide in Gaza. Asking for freedom for palestinians makes sense. they live in an apartheid state and would like a state of their own. they wish to be free of occupation. you can argue with the details, be pro-israel, or whatever, but that is the basic ask of palestinians. (if you want to get into anti-semetic regional sentiment or the desire of certain groups to eradicate the israeli jewish population or Israel as a nation that's a different topic, not the point of what i'm talking about.)
In the Congo and Sudan, it is a different story.
Let's start with the Congo. First of all, Which Congo?
Let's please understand that there is the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Republic of the Congo is a former french colony. Then there is Democratic Republic of the Congo. Some of us might remember this country as Zaire.
the DRC is the congo we are talking about in the news. This was a former belgian colony and the atrocities committed by the belgians there rival any genocide in human history. i've seen estimates between 5 million and 20 million deaths. some estimates state the population of native congolese were cut in HALF. since the turbulent start of the country after their independence in 1960, the country knew relative peace until the 1990s. Then a mixture of a weak central government and the Rwandan Civil war (which had it's own genocide you may have heard about) spilled over into what was then Zaire. Zaire dissolved, and the DRC took it's place, But the wars have been raging off an on since then. earlier this year, more civil war violence erupted AGAIN. This displaced millions, AGAIN. while the DRC is a bit of an autocratic and repressive regime, the rebel groups are groups with ties with the Rwandan government and the other group with ties to Isis. It's awful all the way down.
Sudan has had an ongoing civil war for over 20 years. I remember this because i helped lead some anti-genocide protests regarding Darfur when i was in college 20 years ago. I've been following this conflict for nearly my entire adult life. you may have heard about this with regards to the Save Darfur coalition regarding the genocide in Darfur. Well, that genocide has continued (albeit with less intensity) for 20 years. the civil war lasted until 2021, but restarted in a different form in late 2023. the conflict is now between two different sides of the military government fighting each other.
It is an awful conflict full of awful leaders. Sudan's government suffered a revolution in 2019 from a dictator, only to have that government overthrown in a coup by the current dictator. The Sudanese military is supported by folks like Russia and North Korea. you might see that among the other countries that support sudan, bunch of communist countries, and you might think "hey, maybe al-Burhan is a leftist".
no... no he is not.
He is a military despot. He has no ties to any real ideology. He just runs sudan as a military dictator.
So who is opposing him?
The Rapid Support Forces. and you may be thinking "ok, so they are the good guys? trying to overthrow the dictator?"
No... They are the ones that instigated the Genocide in Darfur.
This is a situation is "no matter who wins, the people of Sudan lose."
So when folks claim these are all the same. Or wonder why folks talk about one and not the other.
there are reasons. These are very different conflicts. Please learn about them. It matters more than spouting some 4 word slogan calling for "freedom."
Find out what the people of these areas actually need. Learn more about what is happening. My description above is incomplete. I may even get some things wrong. I am trying to keep informed, but I am not an expert, nor do i live there. Raise voices from the region and find out if there are ways to help.
508 notes
·
View notes
Text
During Nuremberg Trial testimony, the prosecutor pressed Einsatzgruppen commander Otto Ohlendorf: “You were going out to shoot down defenseless people. Now, didn’t the question of the morality of that enter your mind?” Ohlendorf referred to the Allied bombings of Germany as a context:
I am not in a position to isolate this occurrence from the occurrences of 1943, 1944, and 1945 where with my own hands I took children and women out of the burning asphalt myself, and with my own hands I took big blocks of stone from the stomachs of pregnant women; and with my own eyes I saw 60,000 people die within 24 hours.
A judge immediately pointed out that his own killing spree preceded those bombings. But this would become known as the “Dresden defense,” to which Ohlendorf resorted still another time, in this exchange:
Ohlendorf: I have seen very many children killed in this war through air attacks, for the security of other nations, and orders were carried out to bomb, no matter whether many children were killed or not. Q: Now, I think we are getting somewhere, Mr. Ohlendorf. You saw German children killed by Allied bombers and that is what you are referring to? Ohlendorf: Yes, I have seen it. Q: Do you attempt to draw a moral comparison between the bomber who drops bombs hoping that it will not kill children and yourself who shot children deliberately? Is that a fair moral comparison ? Ohlendorf: I cannot imagine that those planes which systematically covered a city that was a fortified city, square meter for square meter, with incendiaries and explosive bombs and again with phosphorus bombs, and this done from block to block, and then as I have seen it in Dresden likewise the squares where the civilian population had fled to—that these men could possibly hope not to kill any civilian population, and no children.
Ohlendorf thought this defense so powerful that he invoked it yet another time:
The fact that individual men killed civilians face to face is looked upon as terrible and is pictured as specially gruesome because the order was clearly given to kill these people; but I cannot morally evaluate a deed any better, a deed which makes it possible, by pushing a button, to kill a much larger number of civilians, men, women, and children.
(The chief prosecutor, an American, called this particular iteration “exactly what a fanatical pseudo-intellectual SS-man might well believe.”)
At Nuremberg, this sort of tu quoque defense (“I shouldn’t be punished because they did it too”) wasn’t admissible. Still, in the verdict of the Einsatzgruppen Trial, the judges chose to refute it. “It was submitted,” the judges wrote, “that the defendants must be exonerated from the charge of killing civilian populations since every Allied nation brought about the death of noncombatants through the instrumentality of bombing.” The judges would have none of it:
A city is bombed for tactical purposes… it inevitably happens that nonmilitary persons are killed. This is an incident, a grave incident to be sure, but an unavoidable corollary of battle action. The civilians are not individualized. The bomb falls, it is aimed at the railroad yards, houses along the tracks are hit and many of their occupants killed. But that is entirely different, both in fact and in law, from an armed force marching up to these same railroad tracks, entering those houses abutting thereon, dragging out the men, women and children and shooting them.
The tribunal sentenced Ohlendorf to death. He was hanged in June 1951.
“In the last analysis”
Nuremberg enforced a fundamental distinction. All civilian lives are equal, but not so all ways of taking them. The deliberate and purposeful killing of civilians is a crime; not so the taking of civilian lives that is undesired, unintended, but unavoidable. The errors made by a bomber squadron cannot be deducted from the murders committed by a death squad. It’s a difference compounded many times over when those civilian men, women, and children are subjected to torture, rape, and mutilation before their murder. To borrow Khalidi’s phrase, “in the last analysis,” this distinction is what separates modern civilization from its predecessors.
More disturbing is the thought that it separates the contemporary West from its peers. Otto Ohlendorf and the regime he served did all they could to conceal their deeds from Western eyes. Nazi Germany still operated in a West founded on Enlightenment values. So massive a violation of a shared patrimony needed to be hidden from view.
In contrast, Hamas initially sought to publicize its deeds, assuming they would win applause, admiration, or at least tacit acceptance in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Here they succeeded beyond their expectations. The many millions who don’t share the West’s patrimony, and who know next to nothing about the Holocaust or Nuremberg, do see things as Khalidi says they see them. (So, too, does a sliver of alienated opinion in the West, where such views are cultivated and celebrated.)
Finally, and still more disturbing, is the fact that Ohlendorf’s defense has been revived to frame the massacre of Jews.
#Hamas#Palestine#Nuremberg trials#Dresden defense#Israel#leftist antisemitism#jumblr#war crimes#genocide#crimes against humanity
182 notes
·
View notes
Text
One of my favorite follows on TikTok is Reverend Oliver, a trans pastor in West Virginia whose whole thing is trying to teach leftist people how to shed their worst impulses and inclinations to be better members of their communities. He is a firm advocate for genuine connection, leftist cooperation and community building with those on the right, and the kind of activism that is truly transformative and leaves no one behind.
He made a post, in an ongoing conversation about ways for leftists to identify opportunities to connect with their larger communities, that listed some of the fronts where leftists need to consider society's unmet needs. He included child care and elder care on that list. He also included addiction recovery resources.
Seeing an opportunity for the kind of interfaith connection he's always talking about, I pointed out that the LDS Church has free addiction recovery programs that anyone in the public is invited to attend, regardless of religious affiliation. And unlike other resources like the bishop's storehouse, no interaction with ecclesiastical leadership is necessary or expected. You can just show up, get support, and leave without any expectation of obligation, financial or otherwise, to our church. And honestly, a healthy dose of reality for the program from voices outside of our own community might temper some of the attitudes in our own community about pornography and compulsive masturbation being equivalent to an addiction.
So tell me why a random ex-Mormon took it upon themselves to begin an argument with me in Rev. Oliver's comments about the LDS Church leadership and past animosity towards queer people, that it isn't a safe space for them, that all queer people are forced into conversion therapy (which is false), and people show up in ARP with things that aren't even addictions.
Even after I told that person I'm queer affirming, that I believe these are things the Church can and does need to change, that I have actively been working on those improvements through my church membership since Prop 8, they just kept going. I became the dumpster for their unresolved anger towards the institution, even though I'm a total stranger and have nothing to do with anything they were complaining about. I have never put any queer people into conversion therapy and never would. I'm not Dallin H. Oaks and never tortured queer people at BYU. I think the Church has many sins it needs to answer for in relation to its treatment of queer people. At no point did I disagree or argue against anything that was true. For all intents and purposes, this person and I probably agree about a lot of things.
So why were they still attacking me? I'm actively trying to improve what upsets them without invalidating any of their feelings, and they're still upset with me. Why? What more do they want from me?
I find myself in this position with ex-Mormons all the time. With a tenure on Mormon Twitter that went from 2009-2023, I've seen every form and progression of ex-Mormon sentiment that could ever possibly exist. Especially because I left the Church for a time and did so with heartbreaks of my own. They don't know this when they approach me because they have no idea who I am, and I don't expect them to. But the irony is never lost on me that we could honestly be besties if they would shut and stop making assumptions about me long enough to hear what I'm saying.
And I mean that with my whole chest, and with all the self-recrimination that comes with it: ex-Mormons engage people in fights when they have no intentions of listening, achieving understanding, or engaging in constructive resolution with anyone in relation to the Church. They use people for emotional catharsis, and that's all they want from these interactions. I'm just supposed to sit there and take it. That's what they want. That's what they expect. And when I refuse to engage in the process as a receptacle for their disregulated emotions and the shame they want to make me feel, they get mad at me for not giving them what they wanted from me.
They don't see me as a person. They don't respect me or the work I do. They don't actually want to see the Church grow or improve beyond the ways it hurt them in the past because it means the Church and its people were always capable of doing that, just not for them. And they aren't prepared to feel or confront any of that, emotionally or spiritually. All they've ever wanted is a real apology and real change, but when it happens—when someone from the Church genuinely apologizes to them and tells them they deserved better, as I always do—it's not emotionally satisfying at all. The skies don't part, angels don't sing, and they don't feel any better.
It's like that scene from Malcolm in the Middle where Lois finally apologizes to Francis for being abusive to him when he's not expecting it, he freaks out because he had built up what that apology would look like and what it would accomplish in his mind, and he gets mad at Lois for ruining the fantasy in his mind. She doesn't know what to do, so she asks him if $20 would help. He takes the money in a state of confusion, but clearly still doesn't feel any better because it also doesn't help.
So I'm going to say the same thing here that I did there, for when this inevitably happens here: I'm not going to apologize for trying to make the Church a better, safer place for everyone. I'm not going to apologize for my association with the institutional Church, despite its failures and imperfections. I have made peace with my place here, the good I do, the impact I have, and the changes I am making. This is my church too, and despite what people think, there's room for me here. And as long as I'm here, the Church is a better and safer place for marginalized people because I've committed to making it that way. I don't expect anyone to stay when it's safest and healthiest for them to go, but I'm not going to join them. I already tried that and it was a waste of time for me.
If someone decides to place the validation of their choice to leave the Church on my refusal to go with them, that's not my problem. I don't owe anyone that. And their choice to do that doesn't entitle them to use me as an emotional jizz tissue for their anger at (and grief for) the institutional Church and other people in it I've never even met. Put it in a journal or take it to a therapist you pay for. Don't hand it to me, then get offended when I hand it back to you. It's not mine. If you don't want the nasty end results of your emotional outburst, what makes you think I do?
All of this to say to ex-Mormon folks who do this: have some self-reflection. Do you do this to people? Is it healthy? Does it accomplish any of your goals? Is it helping you to become the person you envisioned you would be when you left the Church? Have you fully formed in your mind who that person is? Have you fully and appropriately grieved for everyone and everything you lost? If not, what impact is that choice having on the rest of your life? And should you be doing something about it instead of arguing with me?
Again, don't tell me. Put it in a journal. Tell a therapist. Or, even better, tell the person who actually hurt you. Because telling me isn't going to make you feel better. And you may not realize this yet, but it's tremendously difficult to be me, too. I'm the one telling your parents, siblings, grandparents, friends, neighbors, classmates, colleagues, co-workers, and other people in your life at Church that they need to treat you better—how to do it and what it looks like. You need me. What I do is important. It's also exhausting. And if you use up all of my energy in an argument with you, how am I going to do it? Do you think about that? Do you think about what it costs me to be the person you've already decided it's too exhausting for you to be?
I say this with all the love and encouragement I have: either help me or get out of my way. But don't make my job harder. Why would you do that? It doesn't serve you, me, or anyone else. It just makes you look bitter, makes me less effective at creating the changes you want, and all Mormons (former and current) look like we don't have our shit together. Because this isn't new. Every religious tradition on this planet has had to struggle and figure out how to create space for marginalized people. Every branch of Christianity has had to figure out their relationship to their own queer people, to stop actively hurting them and to embrace them instead. You're a part of this transition, even once you leave, by whether or not you perpetuate this animosity with people who stay. We all have to put down our weapons. The fighting will continue as long as anyone anywhere is still throwing punches.
If you're an ex-Mormon, be the best one there is. Be unbothered and totally disengaged from the Church and its problems. Create the life of your dreams with nothing from the past in it, if that's what you need. When the people in your life direct coercion and manipulation at you in relation to your spirituality and church disaffiliation, return to sender. Be so busy being your own best self, you don't have time for any of this.
That's what you deserve. That's what I want for you. That's what many in the Church who stay want for you, because we're not all selfish pricks who get our jollies from forced homogeneity and making people suffer. That's not even the majority of us. It's the people you're actually mad at. Stop treating us like we're all guilty by association. Have the courage to put the dog turd of your displeasure on their porch where it belongs, not mine.
#ex mormon#exmormon#exmo stuff#mormon#lds#mormonism#tumblrstake#the church of jesus christ of latter day saints#queerstake
46 notes
·
View notes
Text
Propaganda mediatic around Tallien and french revolution
I fully understand that certain figures of the French Revolution are preferred over others who are less liked. It's a matter of preference. I myself have a very cultured friend who is a fan of certain royalists from this period like Olympe de Gouges, although I also admire the character in a certain way and deplore the sexism of that era which excluded her (such as the fact that she totally defends Louis XVI), but I've always enjoyed debating with this person, who is so respectful of others' opinions, very knowledgeable, and well-versed in the subject. Of course, the difficulty lies in not trying to defend the golden legend or the black legend.
It's another thing entirely to invent completely grotesque or even false facts to glorify one figure of the French Revolution and destroy another. In the grotesque episode of "Les Femmes de la R��volution Française" from "Secret d'Histoire," which was actually sexist (I" love" the fact that in this show, which claims to want to glorify women, they talked about the term "demi-mondaine" for women, when will there be an equivalent term for men, or the way paternalistic that someone call Olympe de Gouges the "little" Gouges ), there were also very serious errors or lies, take your pick.
To insinuate that Marat was a dictator when he was simply a deputy who was elected by universal suffrage, a journalist whose recommendations were not heeded, and who was arrested and brought before the Revolutionary Tribunal though acquitted according to the rules, what a funny dictator, I've never seen anything like that from a dictator before.
Furthermore, under what conditions would he have pulled off his coup d'état? The story continues in the next episode, I suppose, even though so far no historian has found any trace of Marat's coup d'état. I imagine the show will clarify that (or not). Under these conditions, I will address Tallien. They try to present him as heroic in the face of Thermidor when in reality everything was prepared for the theater of Thermidor, which was actually more anti-democratic than they let on and not out of the courage of this individual. They say it was Theresia's letter that motivated him to enact Thermidor when in reality it's because Fouché and his gang, of which he was a part, committed the worst atrocities during the French Revolution, and he wanted to escape the punishment that would rightly fall upon him and his friends and try to regain political "purity" by pinning everything on those who were to be executed (he later demanded the head of Billaud Varennes to further absolve himself). There are other motives regarding Thermidor that have nothing to do with the Convention wanting to get rid of a tyrant (Robespierre has faults but not those of a dictator or tyrant) or that they were fed up with the guillotine (the guillotine continued to function after Thermidor and the Convention had voted overwhelmingly for the creation of the Revolutionary Tribunal, arrests, the Law of Suspects). One day I'll write a more detailed piece on what I think because it's very complex, but you can watch "Robespierre: la Terreur et la Vertu" with English subtitles, it gives a better understanding of these events.
Tallien engaged in lucrative business, arresting the richest in Bordeaux so they would hand over all their money to him for personal use. Clearly not an upright man, but very serious. His lucrative business leads me to see two possibilities. Either he plundered honest people in difficult times under the pretext that they were rich and risked ending up with nothing for his personal profit, all while abusing his position, which is generalized extortion. Or he knowingly let suspicious individuals escape in exchange for money (should we recall that some suspicious Frenchmen betrayed France by handing it over to Toulon or Dumouriez), and imposed dechristianization not out of anger like Momoro, for example, but for his political career and to flatter himself, which is worse (sorry for comparing a man like Momoro to an individual like Tallien, they are truly incomparable). Later, he joined the muscadins, among other merry groups.
In any case, it's very serious, and whatever one might say about Robespierre, he had every right to be angry. Tallien is a political turncoat and bloody as Barras (I hate Ridley Scott's Napoleon for destroying the French Revolution and glorifying Barras, among others). The difference between Tallien, Barras, and Fouché is that Tallien completely failed, and an unpopular opinion perhaps, but I'm glad to see he suffered so much; it's well-deserved karma for all the wrong he did.
P.S: I love that the show "Secret d'Histoire" shows Thermidor as a great day for prisoners, as if they don't care about arbitrary arrests after this event (including the arrests of Albertine Marat, Simone Evard, Thuillier found mysteriously hanged, the fact that some political prisoners had to wait a few months after Thermidor to be released).
36 notes
·
View notes
Text
oh my god
a show written by white us americans for us american kids, while often spot on with its anti-imperialism, is not actually the end all be all for how occupied and marginalized peoples can respond to their oppression and genocide. weirdo.
full disclosure I have my problems with the portrayals of jet and hama for this exact reason that i have previously written about here. because ultimately the gaang represent "good" resistance - mostly defensive/nonviolent. jet represents "bad" resistance, namely violent property damage that would have caused civilian casualties if sokka hadn't warned them. and hama, who thanking this op didn't bring up, is supposed to show how trauma can make a person do terrible things but really it just feels like a racist, misogynistic way to both sides colonialism and imperialism.
now unless I'm misremembering the story (I am not) that episode took place in the earth kingdom. why were those innocent fire nation civilians so close to the valley that jet was trying to protect? why was he worried about them encroaching on that valley enough to destroy the dam?
because they were settlers. the fire nation was trying to defeat and occupy the entire world, of course their settlers weren't just innocent civilians, they played a role like all settlers do in all conflicts. and jet and his freedom fighters were all displaced by the fire nation. they were refugees.
in the end, the gaang may have their problems with jet's tactics but they still mourn him and understand that he is RESISTING oppression, and not that he is the same as his oppressor.
katara is UNIQUELY empathetic and decent at times. during the painted lady, she makes it clear that she wants the liberation of ALL - including her oppressors who are also victimized by fire nation imperialism (and capitalism lbr). she sees the class dynamics in the fire nation, sees how they harm the villagers of jang hui. how the military industrial complex poisons fire nation citizens - literally. the problem is that they are happy to take her help when they think she is one of them, but when she reveals herself to be a waterbender, they turn away from her in their racist, xenophobic disgust.
the truth is that katara's form of universal liberatory politics is just one form of resistance against oppression. sometimes atla veers into making it seem like the only acceptable form of resistance, which is quite convenient for the white us americans who wrote the show.
one of atla's main ideas is that imperialism harms everyone, including the beneficiaries of imperialism. it was also written in the early to mid 2000s during the so-called war on terrorism, and with a us american audience in mind. so no I am not surprised that jet isn't seen in a totally positive light, nor am I surprised that the fire nation is occasionally presented in a "not all fire nation" way. it still posits that those innocent civilians are racist/colonizers and frankly complicit in many ways for what the fire nation is doing abroad.
this is why jet isn't a villain, he's just a complicated character. why he is made a martyr. why katara mourns him even if she's angry with him.
as for whether or not katara would condemn hamas... I'm not sure it matters. movements regularly have infighting and disagreements on tactics. even so, atla is a TV show. palestine is a real place with real people who have tried all kinds of forms of resistance. nothing is ever good enough for supporters of the settler colonial project of israel because the point is never, ever to live together in peace. two state solution? where do you see that in atla? if ANYTHING the show calls for pluralism and freedom of movement for all. for an end to nation states and nationalism, as well as preservation of all cultures. liberation for all.
I can't speak to the mess of the comics or lok because I don't care about those but if we're just talking about atla... come on. it's free palestine.
also nice false equivalency between the free palestine movement as a whole and hamas, which is just one part of the movement. racist dipshit genocide apologist.
#the text does not support this bullshit but okay#imagine being a zionist fan of atla 😭😭😭😭#atla#free palestine#anti-zionism#avatar: the last airbender#meta#racism#jet is not the bad guy#long post
34 notes
·
View notes
Text
Zahard downplay is crazy. I'll grant Phantaminum (though regardless of how easily he could have defeated Zahard, fact of the matter is also that for some reason he didn't *shrug*). But Enryu (in its extent) and Urek?
Enryu fought an Admin (whom I, and that's just my personal opinion, believe to not be categorically more powerful than fully realized Irregulars outside of their supposed administrator monopoly over shinsu and its distribution, at least no to the point of categorically out fire - powering said Irregulars) and some fodder but people make the gulf between him an Zahard akin to heaven and earth (nevermind that Enryu is not an administrator, so the whole "but he killed one, and SIU said Zahard could never do it!" is somewhat of a false equivalent to draw for a hypothetical Enryu and Zahard battle. Anyone remember the whole "King of the Tower" Zahard deal, granted said position by virtue of the administrators? Of course he couldn't kill an administrator, he's the Irregular with the most known administrator contracts ("shackles") out of them all).
Mind you, I'm not even saying Zahard would win against Enryu or anything, but he IS 1) a fellow Irregular capable of Shinwonryu 2) a physical anomaly and durability machine, so I don't think it's weird to grant him better reaction times and endurance to say, a first volley of "Red Rain", than background rank and file Rankers. He also categorically doesn't underestimate people, even his far younger and inexperienced data only gradually tested Bam because he absolutely trashed him in their first encounter and wanted to have some fun, so it's unlikely Outside Zahard wouldn't realize the threat Enryu poses (SIU did say he had excellent survival instincts as befitting an adventurer) or not start all out. I'd even argue that to Outside Zahard a nearly hopeless fight to the death would be the equivalent of the fun his data self had with Bam, whether he himself has realized that or not (as reckognized by his data <3).
Urek punched through some scenery, fought an upjumped administrator parasite, needing Bam's help for the finish and had an exchange of hits with Luslec who chose to bounce. The fact of this extended battle screentime alone makes it narratively unlikely that Zahard is only going to be slightly more dangerous, because I see no way that wouldn't feel highly underwhelming to the audience. But even with those "feats" trying to argue that he's more powerful and how widespread that opinion seems already is kinda crazy. There's a reason 90% of Urek>Zahard is based on the old blogpost info about Arie Hon saying that Urek was "far better" than him when they fought at his floor (which. Big whoop, so was Zahard, 10:1 in that regard for him, since we're using blogpost info and such).
And again in reverse, I'm not saying Urek is not incredibly powerful in his own right or deserving of his high ranking, simply that he has yet to tangibly demonstrate something that would put, say, his physical strength (something I've surprisingly often seen as the edge people would give him over Zahard, when imo, giving him an advantage in speed seems far more likely, given his signature technique of "firing shinsu at the speed of light" and everything about Zahard's highlighted monstrous strength) above Zahard, who has the entire Princess of Zahard stuff on his side as a "feat" in that regard alone (creating Princesses out of not only Great Family members but even random Towerborn physically superior to all Ten Great Families average and the (physical) equal of Rankers even all the way back on the Floor of Tests with just a little of his power).
I'll also say that the whole concept of "yeah, number 1 and 2 are definitely stronger than number three (this checks out), but ACTUALLY number four was also stronger than number three all along!" (Uhh, what? In that case, don't give Urek a definitive ranking built into the earlierst lore, that so far checks out (Phantaminum>Enryu>Zahard), and make him a Traumerei or something) would just feel...Random. Especially since number three is the primary antagonist of the whole series.
Tldr; I see the gap between Zahard and Urek as likely to be wider than the one between Zahard and Enryu.
#Tower of God#Zahard#Enryu#Urek Mazino#this feels like it belongs on reddit but I'm not brave enough to swing the bat at that hornets nest#so have some powerscaling on tumblr sowwyy#I also think we are gonna get a “twist” of Zahard's immortality regarding Towerresidents#extending to everyone literally “residing” inside the Tower#elevating Enryu's thorn from just some powerful gadget for Bam and addition to the arsenal to the legitimite weapon necessary to kill Zahar#if any old Irregular and their normal powers could do it in theory I don't see the point of all this hype around the thorn and Enryu tbqh#enryu is incredibly dangerous but I'll need some physical stats to agree with the view of a landslide victory againt Z that's common opinio#Plus both have potential future sight (though admittedly#Zahard's is more focused on “big picture” stuff than literally seeing the immediate future play out before his eyes#so far)
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
@miltonka:
Why do fans of two characters who love each other more than anything in the world fight so hard? You can love them both. Try to understand them both. They both made mistakes, but they are both just people. Each can identify more with the other, understandably. But you have to try to understand them both.
I know this is the way Tumblr used to work, but it feels weird to start a convo on someone else's post by replying in a thread. So I am just going to keep doing it this way to sequester my uninvited replies to my page, to be ignored or responded to as the feed feels fit!
I do think that this comment was saying "let's just all be friends because we love the same show," but I do want to address the sort of consistent false equivalence that is constantly brought up when people say "you can love them both equally." I do believe this is true, you can love both Sam and Dean equally, but we cannot reduce them to the lowest common denominator and pretend they are the same person.
I think the reason Sam fans and Dean fans fight is because some people find it hard to hold criticism and love for a character at the same time and become defensive. Do the boys both make mistakes because they are both human? Of course they do. But they don't make the same mistakes nor do they make the same amount of mistakes, and eventually we have to admit that when criticism of one character outweighs the amount of criticism for the other, maybe the reason is that one character deserves more criticism because of the patterns of behavior they have established.
This doesn't have to mean you don't love that one character as much as the other. It can just mean you see him for how he truly is and demand better. This is how I feel about Dean.
My criticism of Dean doesn't mean I don't love him. It just means I'm not going to ignore his flaws in favor of some ill-fated effort to treat the boys "equally" by pretending that means they are the exact same person. Treating them equally would be holding them to the SAME STANDARD and going from there.
I think this is why Dean fans find criticism from Sam fans tough to take, because they demand that people who claim to love them both to discuss them equally negatively/positively, period. I would do that if the dynamic between the boys was as equal as the fandom demands we treat the boys, and warranted that, but it doesn't. Pretending otherwise to change the standard to cut Dean some slack wouldn't be fair to Sam.
What is fair is seeing things as they are, then being able to hold loving a character while also accurately identify when the character deserves criticism at the same time. Criticism does not equal hate, it is just part of fandom discussions and analysis.
9 notes
·
View notes
Note
Can you tell us more about your horses? Are they part of a story? Love the creature design
boy are they
Félix - he's the main character of the 1860s cycle of the Inver setting. Well, one of three main characters. He's my take on the classic Victorian orphan story with a changelinegtwist, and ends up becoming a regular conman who mainly does door to door sales of bullshit snake oil and insurance scams. Also a master of pretending to be hit by a carriage. A falling out with his two best friends/boyfriends results in him trying and failing to make it on his own, and he gets captured by the Púca just as he's basically dying of exposure in the middle of winter. In return for saving his life, the Púca takes on Félix as a faery servant whose job is to feed his new master by tricking humans into falling into the barrow (the endless field in the Otherworld which is the Púca's territory). He tries to patch things up with his friends, only to find that five years have passed since his disappearance, and old arguments have become deep festering wounds. Neither do they believe that it's really him.
Yeah so as a horse(/shapeshifter) he's the youngest, he's spiky all the time, and he tries hard to hide that part of himself. He wants nothing to do with it. He's the one in my icon. Personality-wise he's a manipulative liar who would say anything to keep his friends at his side, even at their expense.
Macha was once in Félix's exact position - snatched up by the Púca who told her she was special, that she was its favourite. But that was hundreds of years ago now, and the Púca has a shiny new toy to play with. Macha has been abandoned and is slowly losing herself to the erosion of time, and the way she sees it, the best way to regain her former status is to take care of the Púca's newest pet.
Macha spends most of her time as a horse and can be distinguished by her long straight mane and tail. She cannot tell the truth no matter how hard she tries, and speaks mainly in riddles.
Puck is the Púca itself, a pure shapeshifter with no human origin, the original master of the field and Lord of Lies. It is intensely clever and loves to fuck with people, and particularly enjoys watching its own underlings fight for its attention. Puck never takes a human form and tends to appear slightly abstract or unreal, not like a flesh and blood creature, with a minimalist silhouette. I'll be honest I have rarely drawn Puck like ever because the whole point of it is fear of the unknown, and I don't feel strong enough artistically to depict it properly.
Pascal is the modern day equivalent of Puck and its de facto replacement as the master of the field. Pascal is nothing like Puck and likes to throw the whole kitchen sink into his appearance in an effort to seem flashy and intimidating. he is in love with his own face and that's why he tends to take his centaur form in a certain... direction. You can learn more about him including details about his origin and human disguise in my sketchbook all about him with like fifty unpublished drawings but basically he's just kind of a dipshit jerk with a massive ego who gets tamed by a bona fide horse trainer. He has a habit of abducting humans to psychologically torture them on his TV set, but he claims that not all of the abductions are his doing, and that, for some, he has been falsely accused...
Unicorn is Pascal's antagonist. It is mysterious and appears to live on or under the water of Lough Cánamac, the centre of magic in the country of Inver. Unicorns are not supposed to exist in this setting, let alone unicorns which might be the actual culprit behind the most brutal abductions
299 notes
·
View notes
Text
Carmy and Claire... ooof
I’m just gonna get into it.
She tried to be Carmy’s Pete
I feel like Claire is supposed to be Carmy’s Pete, but it doesn’t work because Carmy is not Sugar. I was searching for a parallel to how they were trying to show Claire as a balancing force for Carmy. Which I get. Opposites attract. You see that with Nat and Pete but for some reason it doesn’t work with Carmy because he is so much more ill adjusted than Sugar. Claire, despite being super understanding, also never saw the worst of Carmy. He reserved the worst for the restaurant and used her as an escape. He reserved the worst for Sydney. So Claire was never truly tested or trusted to see it all so of course she easily loved him. They never argued. I did like the softness and gentleness we saw. Carmy needs that, but it just wasn’t totally honest because they were in the honeymoon phase and he was on best behavior just for her. What if she was struggling at some point, would he be able to be there for her in the same way? No. I think this was a perfect example of a woman thinking she can fix a man. The problem is she never saw how deeply he is broken.
Carmy created a love bubble
Carmy never set boundaries and said this is what I can give while I’m on this new project. So she got a false sense of what his world really is and what his priorities needed to be. She has a busy job too but it seemed he accommodated her so in a sense she never really saw the actual reality of them both working like crazy and him coming home stressed. He created a bubble of perfection with her at the center that was never going to be sustainable.
The whole portrayal was lame.
Not gonna lie, I did like seeing romantic Carmy, for personal reasons. If my one positive takeaway is yes he wants to fuck women, yes he can be gentle, that’s a win for me. BUT the overall tone just wasn't hitting. Which gets to a bigger gripe about the tone of most of the episodes not hitting for me. It felt very primetime drama for me with the dialogue equivalent to a teen show. They even went to what looked like a frat party. Her lines were very, “I’m the perfect, quirky, understanding girl with no problems of my own,” and he got throwaways like, “She’s so great it scares me.” Just really mediocre compared to dialogue we’ve seen written for this show. And the fireworks kiss? Come on! I was expecting running in the rain to happen at any moment. I couldn’t tell if the writers wanted me to be invested in them or not. I guess maybe they were trying to make a reliving of Carmy’s lost youth, quite literally? I dunno. It felt sweet at times but also just super corny and out of place on this show.
Is she a pick me?
I actually hate this term. I feel it’s used so flippantly and can be hurled at any woman like a slur. But saying it defines what I mean so forgive me. Claire got the red flag literally from day one. He gave her the wrong number but she still pursued him. She questioned him on it a few times until she got a real answer but his answer was kind of bland. He just said I like you so much and don’t want to mess up. I dunno, when I’ve heard that from a man in the past, they usually do mess the fuck up, big time. This is their way of letting you know. She obviously didn’t ask to define the relationship. Carmy works it out with the crew so they never had the conversation with each other. The whole girlfriend/girl who is a friend thing was so lame for a grown adult man to need to ask about. Sydney was right to punk him and be like which is it? Exactly how important is this? So was Claire never questioning what they were this whole time? She said I love you to him first, I think? She said it on the voice message, which I thought was a bit bizarre. He said he loved her to other people but we never saw him say it to her face. I think it was just really strange that we never got a scene of them saying it to each other. Sorry, I’m old fashioned, the man needs to say it first, to a woman’s face. I feel this is one step away from a woman proposing to a man which is also a no for me.
I didn’t understand the family connection
They all know her yet we hear nothing about her from them and Carmy has been home quite awhile at this point. Fak has her number? They call her Claire Bear? They don’t call anyone not immediate family Bear so why does she get that? Because it rhymes? Eeek. She is supposedly so close with them all but we never see them interact with her until she dates Carmy? Sugar never mentioned her. Did he have a crush in high school or did he just wish they were friends before? When Mikey, Richie, and Fak try to push her on him at Christmas he seems really disinterested. Was it just a self esteem thing, that he was put on the spot, he didn’t want a relationship, or just didn’t have a crush on her like that? It’s really unclear what that was about. And then she knows about The Bear name but he says he wishes she talked to him more. So when was this conversation? It’s just really sloppy and none of the details align. Everyone treats her like she was so close to the family but there’s no real evidence of that from the past that makes any sense. I’ve seen some fans say Carmy connected her with his family trauma and that’s why it can’t work. I don’t really get that. Maybe that’s what they tried to write but I’m not getting how when it seems the family connection is just them trying to set him up with her. Am I missing something?
Will they explore this again?
I think it’s hard to tell. It is interesting that they started in the refrigerated section and it ended because Carmy was trapped in a fridge. Cold, literally. The use of the blue light when they were in bed and the blue light when Carmy was trapped was interesting. Does it mean finality? I don’t know. She didn’t even get a last name. They didn’t really end it face to face. Would they explore it again if Carmy is more stable? At this point I have no idea what they intend but I can’t conclude it’s done, done. Overall, the fan reactions have been negative. I’m not sure if the show cares or not. If I were her I would stay away. Repeat relationships rarely work out because trust is broken. How would she be able to trust Carmy again? Even if feelings are still there I would feel duped if I were her.
Thoughts?
89 notes
·
View notes
Text
I think I understood another key with which to read Shizune's route, in particular her bad ending:
Hisao cheats on Misha if he gets overwhelmed by Shizune's personality.
Shizune means well, as she genuinely enjoys making people happy, but she is a controlling, overbearing person. This is the core of her character. I pointed out how she is the only girl who, the Saturday before the festival, doesn't wait for Hisao to come to her, but instead she is the one physically dragging Hisao out of his room. This is what she does: she drags people into her life, and then takes control, because otherwise she's not quite sure of how to keep people nearby.
This is not a good thing. Misha shows why it's not a good thing. Shizune kept Misha nearby despite her heartache - of course because she liked her as a friend, not just out of selfish reasons, but her "comparmentalizing" mentality still caused the poor girl pain.
If you choose to "comfort" Misha, we get this line:
After all, I've only had sex once before, and I was restrained to a chair. This time, I'm in control, like I'd wished then.
When Shizune and Hisao had sex at her place, she seized complete control. She tied him to a chair, which is the equivalent of gagging him, and then rode him, without him being able to do anything. Hisao noted that she seemed to alternate between aggressiveness and naiveté, like a girl pretending to be a woman: most likely, she also saw this act as a challenge to win. The thing is that Hisao didn't sound fully on board:
NARRATOR: "I wonder exactly when it was that I started being attracted to her. Not just attracted to her physically, but drawn to her. And, I wonder why. She's pretty, but then, also very combative. Not just that, but she seems to like being that way. The way she's acting now, however, and at other times, doesn't really fit that image. I'm starting to think that maybe her tying my hands might have been for more reasons than just the most obvious." NARRATOR: "Still, that aggressiveness that she flashes around as comfortably as a business card is real. I don't know whether or not that kind of attitude could be considered dangerous. If it is, I wonder what kind of person that makes me. It was probably the first week I was here. A week doesn't sound so long when I think about it, but at the time it did. Even though I pretty much thought my days were numbered that week, it still seemed to go by so slowly. Even if she can't hear me, it puts me at ease. I started to realize that I didn't have that much to complain about. But there's still... Well, never mind."
Hisao's sentiment is pretty much "it's nice, but". The last line might refer to his hesitation at having been put in this position of submission, which he decides to brush off, but still lingers.
He wanted control. He wanted at the very least a higher degree of freedom. The freedom Shizune didn't afford him, because Shizune has seized control of his life, and the only time Hisao is even allowed to make a choice, it's when she's nowhere to be seen.
And he can choose to break free from Shizune's control in the worst way possible, getting closer to the less overbearing Misha. Remember: the route falsely implies that Misha is crushing on Hisao, before the big reveal that she's actually interested in Shizune.
At this point, whether Hisao slept with Misha or not, Shizune realizes that she's been a bad friend and girlfriend for yanking people around, and she comes out with the grand plan of asking Hisao to cheer Misha up for her.
The branching point between good and bad ending is that in the latter, not only Misha never recovers, but Lilly shows up again.
This scene is mostly remembered for being a huge continuity error: what is she doing here, isn't she supposed to be in Scotland? That's true. But aside from this, it's interesting that Lilly has one last conversation with Hisao the moment his relationship with Shizune has started to irreversibly spiral.
This scene only exists for Lilly to voice Hisao's, and maybe the player's, thoughts about Shizune:
LILLY: "I wish you hadn't been so quick to join. I don't like the way Shizune runs the Student Council. Did you know that she scared off most of the old members? That is why I think she tries to surround herself with people who won't oppose her. And they don't. It's like a dependency bubble."
LILLY: "Is that so? Either way, there is no point in attempting to force them to make up. Always try to confront everything head-on is what Shizune would do, but it doesn't work in the real world. At some point, it's just being stubborn, not bravery or good intentions."
LILLY: "When I joined the Student Council, I thought it would just mean helping everything run smoothly and helping people out, like being the class representative. Instead, every day consisted of having Shizune stomp around, using Misha like a megaphone, to talk about how we had to outdo the last Student Council, and create more and more events, and make them increasingly larger."
HISAO: "Yeah, sure. The point is, I think I understand what it's all about now. You're really giving Shizune too much of a hard time." LILLY: "That might be true, but when it comes to how she treats individual people, she doesn't do very well." NARRATOR: "Unfortunately, that one is a little harder to argue."
It's all about Shizune's flaws. It's all about her abrasive personality, her stubborness. Lilly accuses her of wrapping herself in a dependancy bubble, of using Misha like a megaphone, and by the end, not even Hisao can defend her. He might understand Shizune's vision for the Student Council, but he has grown tired of everything Lilly has pointed out - after all, it's why he went behind her back, right?
And to an extent, he's right, because when things come to a breaking point, Shizune once again falls into her old selfishness: it's her who decides that she wants to be away from other people, because she has decided thar she's a terrible person who poisons every relationship of hers. Of course, Hisao really has no fucking right to call her selfish anymore, after what he did... but he does have a point. It's just sad under multiple angles.
Of course, you can also choose to see his decision to "comfort" Misha in another way: him succumbing to passivity once again.
"As much as I pretend to protest, I've allowed things to come to this point. Even though I knew so far ahead of when she actually came out with it that this was what she was getting at. At the very least, I was okay with this outcome. If I needed any more proof, it's simple: I still haven't turned her away. I could have at any point, and it was wrong of me not to do it sooner, but now, not doing so is something beyond simple carelessness."
Hisao goes along with having sex with Misha because welp, might as well at this point! She wants this, so sure, why not.
So in summary, Hisao pushing Misha away in the good ending might be seen as 1) him taking a decision without Shizune's influence at all, 2) him respecting both Misha and Shizune enough to do the right thing, without any resentment or lingering crush getting in the way.
Sadly I wish I had more to say about Shizune's good ending, because I like her route, but that ending has little to do with her as a character and it's more about the theme of graduating and moving on. It is to note, of course, that if you do get the good ending, Hisao is rewarded with another sex scene with Shizune, and this time he's able to gain the control he wanted, the two being finally equals. And at least Shizune is able to recognize her flaws without pushing her friends away, because she had proof that they care about her and she has a positive impact on them.
Shizune's route is fun to analyze. It doesn't have the major feels, and most of the complaints against it make sense, but reading between the lines was the intent and personally I have a lot of fun with it. It helps that Shizune is a very well written character, reasonably flawed but still compelling. Kind of a shame that the bad ending is better written than the good ending, though.
#katawa shoujo#shizune hakamichi#yes you can't stop me from writing meta about a 12 yo forgotten vn#i have the thoughts. the thoughts demand to be put on paper
18 notes
·
View notes
Text
alright, alright, serious post about episode 102. i was really angry when i saw ludinus ignore every single valid argument against the gods or have an ounce of sympathy for the innocent lives lost and instead cackle like a stereotypical villain about how he was right all along. but then i was also super lost when the hells came to the conclusion ludinus only showed them the vision because he wanted the same power and lack of consequences to perform them as the gods.
and then it hit me. context is key. and what's the context of them being shown this orb?
ludinus wants to show them the darkest day of the gods abusing their power. but all they have seen of ludinus are his darkest days. this is the closest to a good day they have seen from him and i can guarantee if they'd stumbled upon this orb by accident or had been shown it by allura or anyone besides ludinus they'd be a little more understanding and less punchy. not fully change their opinions, though; i think if dorian or ashton were shown this in isolation their god-hating opinions would remain, fearne's ambivalence would remain, and the rest's shaky yet mostly positive opinions would remain. but since ludinus showed them this with the undercurrent of "you'll all trust and believe me wholly after seeing this!" he kinda shot himself in the foot. of course they assume the worst.
it doesn't make imogen a mean bitch laughing at his trauma and telling him it doesn't matter. it doesn't make orym a whiny hypocrite trying to lord his pain over ludinus'. it doesn't make chetney and laudna r/iamverysmart posters for bringing up the very real facts that he is oppressing people and harming innocent lives to "stop oppression and innocent lives being lost". it doesn't make ashton telling him he's just as bad as them a false equivalency because a bureaucrat "isn't as bad" as a deity. if ludinus is allowed to be upset for seeing the worst in someone demanding unwavering trust that has done nothing but harm them, then so are they.
this isn't me saying he's worse than the gods and they've done nothing wrong. they're equally oppressive, the hells even so much as admitted that the gods fucked up and "sinned".
and here's the kicker: i genuinely think that if they sat down and had a calm talk with ludinus, if they told him that the gods were not perfect and told him about firsthand stopping the colonization in issylra and delilah causing the apocalypse with her own god, if they gave orym 400mg of weed so he would chill for like ten seconds, if fcg was alive and told him that his pain was valid, if they were as kind and sweet and supportive as humanly possible to him... he'd still get fucking pissed at them if they didn't 100% agree with him.
he is not looking for a debate. he told them to make their own opinions on what they were shown but then got enraged when their opinions did not line up with his and then triggered delilah to rip herself out of laudna out of spite. i can sympathize with what happened to him, but i cannot sympathize with how he responds to criticism that does not immediately center and for lack of a better term, coddle him.
and i don't mean that in the sassy bnf post way like "this character is a bratty womanchild/manchild that needs to grow a pair", i mean it in the sense that this is the behavior of a person that was neglected so intensely that they take all criticism as a personal attack every time. it's a trauma response that's been getting worse and worse as the campaign goes on and his mental state has been getting worse due to outside forces triggering him. (eg: laudna and orym and imogen on the heroes' side)
ludinus is very, very hurt. fucking duh. he watched aeor fall as a kid and got told to suck it up as said kid. that'd fuck anybody up! so no matter what anybody says to him, if they do not validate his feelings immediately after he's shown them how he was hurt, he's going to hear them saying "fuck off, you're just whiny" no matter what they're actually saying. that's why he smiled at the orb because he'd finally been justified, and it's why he got so angry when the hells told him they refused to join him.
i'd also reckon this is why he's parentified liliana; the one person that did show him kindness and sympathy and he refuses to let her go just as much as she refuses to let go of him. he needs her not just as the vessel, but as his only "friend". i think that's why he wants imogen or fearne to join him. then he won't have to kill the only person who cares for him. it's a fucked up abusive relationship he's convinced himself is healthy because they understand each other like no other.
but of course, then what? what next? does he really want power? i don't think so, ludinus' ship has sailed. he just wants the gods dead and doesn't care what happens next. it's why he insists with no proof predathos won't care about anyone else asides the gods. it's why he's going to sit back and let the reilora conquer exandria. it's why if he fails, he doesn't care if everything burns down and the world is thrown into chaos.
if people refuse to see a world without gods, then only way out of this for ludinus da'leth is oblivion. and he's fine with that if they get taken out with him.
#🍃#critical role#critrole#ludinus da'leth#ludinus is deeper than the fandom gives him credit for and i can appreciate the shades of grey#i also want to beat him to a bloody pulp with a hockey stick#these are not mutually exclusive#also imo if you want an annoying depthless villain fearnes' shitty rapist dad is right there. he's an anticiv fash too
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
hm. Thinking about Edega.. he’s very interesting to me so I’m gonna ramble for a sec about him.
after 5-2N Ian states this is the most Edega has ever spoken to (Lucky in specific) It’s strange for a cold man like him, but something similar happened with Hugh. The only two people Edega puts priority on were famous and influential, people who really could get word out. Mayhaps Edega wishes to give them the best care possible and do something revolutionary, getting their hospital on the chart. After all he stated himself that their hospital was pretty under due to the staff drought that they need an experimental intern to help. If he could do something revolutionary in medicine and really get that out there things would be better for patients and the staff.
(Cut here to not flood RD TL)
However. This is clearly overshadowed by selfishness. Edega is constantly on Ada and Ian for their productivity and time management, why aren’t they working harder and wasting their time when there’s so much to be done. Everyone must be self sufficient in Edega’s eyes, as long as what needs to be done is done for a patient, it’s good enough. Along with this, Edega always refers to the “ultimate cure” that’s being worked on as HIS, it’s HIS cure all. Despite seemingly Ian doing constant work for this project, intern and Ada gathering the tests and information, and the patients (especially Lucky) being guanine pigs to HIS cure. It’s clear the fame of a cure all bringing way to new things is snuffed by Edega’s intentions to take all fame for himself. They’re subordinates, why should they get credit?
And on that last note- the Patients. It’s already bad that Edega treats them as nothing more then numbers and care for them according to their status, but actively testing on them? The intern rhythm doctor program is stated to be just that a program. However, this program is not an equivalent alternative to healing. It helps in the short term, yes, but as seen with almost every patient they continue to need more treatments then just the one. Cole and Nicole’s addictions weren’t solved by the program, that was having each other, making the result of them being “cured” by the program a false positive.
Then there’s Insomniac. There’s no way Edega could of missed the reports of power getting knocked out in the hospital and my man’s literally LOSING part of his heart. And to be fair while they didn’t know the program caused it, he still didn’t take any procedures like stopping the program or going further into figuring out what went wrong to cause genuine damage. Lucky was being admitted and there was no time to waste on that, this was his chance to bring fame! Ian of course figured it out after chapter 5 inbetween working on this “cure” Edega wanted but it’s pretty clear Edega isn’t stopping the Rhythm Doctor program anytime soon. He’s too close now.
Call him Gabriel Icarus Edega, the sun is grand but the cost will drag him and everyone else down with him.
Ok I’m done being a nerd who looks too deep into things ❤️❤️ me when I grab this shithead and put him in the realm of “Good end goal - Bad practice and worse intentions in the pursuit of speed.” Bros a hypocrite for telling Lucky to be patient
24 notes
·
View notes
Text
There’s an existing but increasing trend of people moderating comment sections by leaving up actual bigotry but taking down critical thoughts (even if the criticism is building onto the discussion and not insulting it) and blunt discussion of deeper topics (even, again, when they’re directly relevant to the conversation being had). I don’t like it and what’s more I don’t like propaganda and bigotry being left up because the assumption is that readers will reject it. If you leave enough of it up, even if challenged, eventually people will only remember the bigotry and its justifications.
There’s a proper way to regard lies and half-truths: you say it’s not true, you repeat the lie in a context indicating it’s not true, and then you repeat that it’s a lie. Otherwise you can invoke the illusory truth effect. There is no way, that I know of, to use this process against throwaway comments and threads online if you’re not the original poster.
In some cases, the moderator doesn’t know enough to know the original comment is hate speech, even when it’s overt.
I had a run-in with a person commenting on a popular social media account, and the comment said that talking about your disability online is equivalent to scamming (yes, that’s what they said and yes, the person they were policing is disabled). I confronted them about it, as did several other people.
The comments calling a disabled person talking about their disability a grifter (yes, the word was used) stayed up. The replies condemning this were taken down.
Why? Because calling him a grifter was in line with the original content (which I otherwise have no problems with. Disabled people can be scammers too). The comments defending his humanity, however? Clouded the discussion bashing him. Added nuance where it wasn’t wanted.
What I’m saying is a lot of these “moderators” don’t have the skills, time, resources, credentials, or background to be monitoring discussions. And it’s really hurting community dialogue considering how ubiquitous these platforms are and how difficult it is to find other places online for these conversations.
Some of these comment sections are engaged in toxic positivity and either or thinking. Some in critical thinking bashing and anti-intellectualism (yes, really). Some of them are engaged in misinformation and some are pits of chaos and hate.
But nearly all of them have one thing in common: if you say something unpopular or controversial (so it can be completely factual, just less well-known) your contribution will be taken down, while comments literally calling people slurs will be left up. Leaving many conversations stuck in a surface-level loop.
This is a good way to cement false information but a bad way to encourage learning. It feels like respectability-politics lite. Pretty soon, bluntness (and here I mean informative, and not blunt for bluntness’s sake) will be regarded as bullying but trying to get the point across politely will be regarded as duplicity. I can already see it happening. I do not want to go back. We cannot go back.
People are engaging in potentially devastating long-term harm for short-term engagement. And I’d rather not find out what the cost will be.
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Six Napoleons pt 2
Last time many people had plaster busts of Napoleon, which one of the owners admitted had no value. It was very strange.
And Lestrade is getting a bigger role, which I will always support.
For the first time our eyes rested upon this presentment of the great Emperor, which seemed to raise such frantic and destructive hatred in the mind of the unknown.
Do not understand why Napoleon is being referred to with such respect. Historically the British have not had the most positive relationship with the French. It's been super messy. But I guess if you rule enough places in the world and fight enough people then... Victorians thought you were cool? Even if you were French? And some of the people you fought were their grandparents?
This whole thing is strange to me.
Apart from the fact someone is dead. That I got.
“The most practical way of getting at it, in my opinion, is to identify the dead man."
That does seem like an important step in the investigation.
“No doubt; and yet it is not quite the way in which I should approach the case.”
I know that this is because Holmes doesn't think the dead man is linked to the case beyond being there at the time, and he cares about the puzzle here. But I do still believe that identifying the body is important.
"Tell him from me that I have quite made up my mind, and that it is certain that a dangerous homicidal lunatic with Napoleonic delusions was in his house last night. It will be useful for his article.”
Don't give my favourite character a false lead, Holmes!
"Let us make for Mr. Morse Hudson, of the Kennington Road, and see if he can throw any light upon the problem.”
This time I will not be taken in. Those are both surnames. I am sure of it!
"Disgraceful, sir! A Nihilist plot, that's what I make it. No one but an Anarchist would go about breaking statues. Red republicans, that's what I call 'em."
How times have changed! It's definitely the republicans who smash the statues of military dictators. Lolol.
"Do I know that photograph? No, I don't. Yes, I do, though. Why, it's Beppo. He was a kind of Italian piece-work man, who made himself useful in the shop. He could carve a bit and gild and frame, and do odd jobs. The fellow left me last week, and I've heard nothing of him since".
The 'no, I don't, wait, I do' is very realistic. I appreciate that. And clearly Beppo is a bad guy here. He just left his job right before all of this started to happen. He's either on the run from our Napoleonic Bust Buster or he is the Bust Buster himself.
"...we came to a riverside city of a hundred thousand souls, where the tenement houses swelter and reek with the outcasts of Europe."
So it's an immigrant area. And it's a shitty place to live. Surprising absolutely no one.
Their wholesale price was six shillings, but the retailer would get twelve or more.
Maths time
I believe that should be approximately £60 RRP per bust. So that doctor spent the equivalent of £120 on busts of Napoleon that were destroyed.
Sucks to be him, I guess.
The work was usually done by Italians in the room we were in.
Ooh, where did we last see an Italian? Or not see him, actually, because he had mysteriously and suspiciously disappeared a few days prior.
Beppo, what have you done?
"Beppo was his name—his second name I never knew. Serve me right for engaging a man with such a face."
Excuse me?
Oh, this is the guy that Watson compared to an ape, isn't it. Oh good grief. Seriously? I'm kind of on Beppo's side right now. Sure he killed someone, but you're clearly a dickhead. In fiction, the second one is definitely a worse crime.
If you weren't conventionally attractive according to Victorian values, you just died, I guess.
"No, I have never seen this face which you show me in the photograph. You would hardly forget it, would you, sir, for I've seldom seen an uglier."
People really need to stop saying things like that. If I were Beppo and I had to put up with that constantly, I would have knifed someone in the street, too.
"His name is Pietro Venucci, from Naples, and he is one of the greatest cut-throats in London. He is connected with the Mafia, which, as you know, is a secret political society, enforcing its decrees by murder."
The fact they have to explain what the Mafia is. 😂
And it should be noted, that Lestrade is at least also on the Italian path through his investigations. Yes, he's ignoring the busts, which is strange, but he's definitely sniffing up the right kind of tree.
I assume that whatever was hidden in the busts after the infamous knifing of June 3rd has some connection to Mr Venucci.
“Is a very simple one. I shall go down with Hill to the Italian quarter, find the man whose photograph we have got, and arrest him on the charge of murder."
OK, now he has skipped out a number of steps in the 'proving Beppo committed the crime' process.
Lestrade, I was rooting for you!
"I can't say for certain, because it all depends—well, it all depends upon a factor which is completely outside our control."
All the best plans rely on things that are completely outside of your control. I assume Holmes' plan is to lie in wait at the house of one of the other bust owners and hope that Beppo didn't find what he was looking for in the last bust he smashed.
For my own part, I had followed step by step the methods by which he had traced the various windings of this complex case, and, though I could not yet perceive the goal which we would reach, I understood clearly that Holmes expected this grotesque criminal to make an attempt upon the two remaining busts, one of which, I remembered, was at Chiswick. No doubt the object of our journey was to catch him in the very act...
It seems like you do, in fact, perceive the goal, Watson. The goal is to catch the criminal in the act. You don't perceive the criminal's goal, which is an entirely different thing.
I was not surprised when Holmes suggested that I should take my revolver with me. He had himself picked up the loaded hunting-crop which was his favourite weapon.
How does one load a hunting crop?
Oh... it has a steel core.
Well that doesn't seem very nice.
But I suppose neither is a revolver.
23 notes
·
View notes