#which. again. is false

[itspileofgoodthings]

my life is a very slow process of everyone around me telling me not to be anxious and me fighting them all tooth and nail while inching towards more stable mental health.

[infinitelystrangemachinex]

The stewards of the old world are always keen to give you a glimpse of their might... According to legend, the ancients built specialized chambers to seal away false prophets.

The Arcane is waking up.

[da-janela-lateral]

People always comment about cool Dimple possession ideas and forget one of the most frankly underrated ones: the teenage journalist who STOLE his cult.

[glitter-stained]

Ngl it really peeves me when the debate about Jason's ethics regarding killing in the batfam mixes up the question of him being a moral character in regards to sticking to his own philosophy (aka compromising with what he thinks is right to salvage relationships, but also exploding trains to evade capture, killing random goons in a gang war, etc) and the question of him being a moral character in regards to whether his philosophy is right. And even with regards to his philosophy there is his philosophy on politics, crime control and harm reduction, and his ethical philosophy itself (utilitarianism, aka focusing on intended positive consequences of actions for the greater good rather than the action being fundamentally moral or immoral in itself). Those are different things. Those require different debates and should not be conflated together. I'm not even saying Jason is right! I think utilitarianism and deontology both suck and fail at providing sufficient guidelines for moral behaviour. ("Everybody still loses" like the nihilist clown says. The symbolism of that one scene is pretty cool on that regard.)

And I think some people at dc would very much like for you to make the connection that because Jason is harming civilians/killing unnamed goons, he is a bad person, and as such you don't need to examine the way his stance on moral philosophy (utilitarianism) opposes Batman's. But that's not right, they don't get to wiggle out of the fact that utilitarianism vs deontology is a complicated debate that has been going on for ages, that there is no clear-cut answer where Batman fundamentally comes out on top, they don't get to use the fact that Jason (in the era currently discussed) is a villain to saddle us with a false dichotomy of "well jason is wrong about stuff so batman has to be right" to avoid addressing the actual question. The traits of the people being tied on the tracks do not change the shape of the trolley problem. The traits of the person deciding to pull the lever do not change the shape of the trolley problem. It's still one lever, three people tied on one track, one on the other, do you pull the lever. That's it. Yes, bending the metaphor to address other questions (such as "who keeps tying people to the tracks" to question systemic violence or "how does my bias, my prejudice and empathy impact my decision to pull the lever depending on who is on the tracks") are interesting but that's not what the debate is about. If I wrote an essay about the trolley problem in high school and focused primarily on the nature of the people being tied on the tracks, I'd get a big fat zero with "off-topic" written in red all over my essay, so I'm not inclined to allow DC comics to get away with it.

[willyhoos]

this is my favorite scene in the game because its just italy trying to make things as confusing and frightening as possible for reasons that end up benefiting NO ONE in the end

[thesweetnessofspring]

Drives me crazy that Katniss will be called an unreliable narrator (when she's not) but Coriolanus Snow skates by without anyone saying boo about him being an unreliable narrator.

Like all it takes is being written in 3rd person? Our girl gets called unreliable for having opinions and whiny nepo baby Snow isn't for the exact same thing??? And his opinions contribute to continued violence in Panem???

Oh but it's in limited 3rd, it's soooooo different. 3rd person is always so reliable! 🙄

[dxxtruction]

I'm genuinely concerned that iwtv (tv) spells out EXACTLY how Louis is unreliable in his narration, but people spin this into what they think unreliable narration more generally means to them, and not what it means to this narrative. Just to be clear here are the ways Louis IS unreliable (If I happened to have missed something feel free to add):

Louis shows signs of forgetting which are normal in people who've endured long term traumatic events. Any relevant pieces of information forgotten are however righted, and sought to be righted.

Like anyone recounting a personal narrative, Louis states how things occurred from this limited perspective and worldview of the personal. He has a personal idea of himself he'd like to get across, much like anyone. He is not omnipotent. But while most might be fine if the person receiving this story interprets their experiences differently, offering to wider perspective, Louis is often very particular about the ways it must be described fitting how he can already perceive it. Which makes for times of there being a rigid perception of events, where broader narrative introspection could've offered a more truthful telling. Though sometimes this actually keeps it more truthful. This character flaw, if you will, is what Daniel is around to challenge, and he's very successful at it, even when his challenging can push in the wrong directions and draw up the wrong conclusions. Bringing up latent memories, and digging out hard truths Louis has long not admitted. At least hitting on something real, in any case. Meaning, for us, the audience, we are still in relatively reliable hands even with this in play, and so are not actually that off from truth when it is being told by Louis, who is intentionally seeking to tell it, even get it. Merely, our narrative is being, in ways, restricted as to how much is being told, and, outside Louis control, obfuscated in its reliance deliberately. (which we'll return to).

To jump off from this, Louis does withhold. He can sometimes tell Daniel something then never explain or have an answer for it he's willing to say. But we see this most apparently in how the diaries exclude certain events. That he doesn't detail much of his time with Armand, especially sexually, is a more subtle way of this. He withholds narratively to protect others, and respect them and their histories from being exploited. Though in other instances he withholds moreso to protect himself from this, and the image he wishes to present to Daniel and thus the world. One could see the act of presenting he and Armand's relationship as, firstly one where Armand is his servant Rashid, but then one of far more affection than it really holds, at this point in time, as withholding the truth as well. One could go a step further and say he does this to preserve a sense of agency and control over his inner and personal life, not just over the interview, but over this relationship as a whole. In a sense, Louis editorializes because the reality of things is beyond what feels his right to tell, and otherwise be endangering to his sense of self to tell. Louis usage of language is another way he keeps a sense of agency, as he can still pick the words he chooses to describe his life, even if his life has been largely out of his control. He can't in ways tell the full truth without giving up something he's simply unwilling to give.

Related to this, how he defends things, or is defensive of things, portrays a distorted idea of reality, but an honest portrayal of his own perspective on it. Most starkly I'd say is his claim to consider himself not abused.

His complicated feelings, especially about loved ones, give rise contradictory statements about people and events. Where he can claim one thing, and likely claim it from his personal feelings about it, but we are then shown events where this claim doesn't exactly live up to itself in every way, in his or others actions.

However, the main way Louis narrative becomes unreliable is through the lies and distortions manufactured into it and the ways in which the interview is undermined by conflicts of interest in it. Louis story is in fact one containing lies, and active distortions of events/thoughts, beyond normal forgetting, because of Armand's conflict in letting the truth be told. Mind though, that by the end of the story, much like [1] these we can presume have all been corrected for. Or at the very least who this information truly pertains to, Louis, is shown to have no interest in questioning that it hasn't been. What is relevant to have been the full truth has all been said.

There's a bit of a cultural thing influencing the interview. By this I mean Louis and Armand together had created a culture of politeness and respect, which discouraged and fought down getting at the heat of conflict, or emotional and mental vulnerability. Setting aside differences. Leaving things unaddressed, or burying issues, making up quickly, and in incomplete ways, as a means of maintaining a peaceful environment, leads to a level of transactionally met falsehood of how either is portraying themselves, especially in relation to one another, playing into what seems beneficial to them, more than what would be confrontational of the truth between them. Armand offends far more aggressively in this, and one can only guess this comes more from a rearing much more solidified in this kind of culture where there is a multitude of rules around maintaining a facade of 'nice' behavior for a presumed benefit of the group. Whereas, even if Louis follows this in some ways, he is more often seen to push against this, actually. (see; 'acting out')

There was a period (post 2x05 especially) where he makes claims about Armand, with no real way to back them, but for the purpose of continually marking Armand as a traitor. So, making purely emotional claims as opposed to knowing he's getting the facts straight. Discrediting Armand, even if he might be telling the truth. (debatable, of course, but I feel the need to include it anyhow).

The only real thing left of Louis unreliability in our conclusion is some residual effects of his doing where things are then left unanswered, and the information to be found in other peoples perspectives, which Louis isn't held responsible to be knowing about. So it's highly doubtful these are to where Louis is ever to be discredited on his telling of things, more that he just simply can't account for everything without betraying himself, and can't be held responsible to what he simply can not have known, or others controlling his narrative either.

To summarize what this all then means is that Louis is not telling any sort of story, at any point along it, worth discrediting, let alone fully, and wherever he was swaying in that direction, past or presently, it has been corrected for, or at least questioned, to where we can draw all the reliable conclusions on it through inference and sound interpretation. Making what we are left with by the end of season 2 the most reliable version of events of Louis personal perspective, even if quite a good sum of it is still left to this inference. It is because of what is left to inference, and what is something outside the realm of his personal perspective, that makes us the more unreliable sources of determining these events. WE are more likely to be distorting it by this point in the story, than Louis is shown to be. Our judgments, can do more impeding on what ends up being Louis honest account, than Louis ever was.

What Louis unreliability is not, is ever entirely dishonest - is ever one making up events, or turning them into something they were not. Everything we are told is a personal account of things that actually happened. It's certainly not one where, by the end, you can point at anything, and claim there's an irreparable falsehood about it. Perspective on events change, but that they had happened and in a sequential way, does not. One might not like or be satisfied with his point of view, yet this changes nothing. Memory is a monster, but Louis', a monster himself, is still real. These are his true memories as he is remembering them.

Beyond that, the more imperative story told here is the emotional one. On this journey of truth telling, Louis is also relieved of being unreliable about his emotions, and in the conclusion, he's living shamelessly for who he is, past and presently. This opens new doors for his character to exist beyond memory. The interview was a journey of self acceptance, and one's fight for having and reclaiming a self. The true take away, frankly, is that Louis got this, and nothing we can infer and interpret otherwise about his truth, where it is left open, can take this away from him.

I guess this is all to say Louis 'unreliable narration' is actually something he works through, perhaps in its realistic entirely (we are always a little unreliable). It's something that gets righted as a major part of the resolved conflicts that happen over the course of the interviews events, as so we, like Louis, are also resolved of this unreliability if we hold it to that same level of being the truth. And that is also if we are inferring and interpreting things left open properly, which is hard to say, even for Louis. That is where all of that 'unreliability' rests on is the things left open to question still, or gain new perspective on, and not that any one part of what we were presented with is falsely constructed. As we have actually gotten it reconstructed out of that.

[gimmick-blog-bracket]

Here is a better list of all the competitors that were submitted but don't exist and/or were deactivated. Some of them are probably typos and incorrect recollections of actual blogs, so I'll go through them and fix that at a slightly later time.

bovine-blogger the-jahalh voiceclaim-poll whatcoloristhiscat rat-detector-17 The-purpurhaj the-prisonerr newfoundland-official i-make-things-explode is-this-pokemon-photo-cute ice-cream-sunday yeahokillreblogthat 25th-rat-detector officialgrassrating foxeseveryhour is-this-yuri i-make-things-glitched-out fuckyouinparticuloar official-level-five rat-undetector certified-new-york-posts translatingthingsinfrench praise-anon bocchidaily post-uwufier the-fake-catholic-church space-updates-today Couldtheybecouldtheybekira is-the-snake-video-cute

[keiksy-cake]

Hetalia Gangsta 544, 545

Summary: AmeChu talk about hotdogs; Ita and Fra react to the pineapple card

First chapter 1-2

Prev chapter 30-33

Next chapter

Hetalia Gangsta Masterlist

.

I like to post up to the image count limit in these reposts to avoid too many posts so I wasn't sure if to hold off on these two or not since verus hasn't updated in like a month and idk when the next one will be. they've said they do plan on continuing but I feel bad for being so late in sharing their work here so I figured I should post these now.

First chapter 1-2

Prev chapter 30-33

Next chapter

Hetalia Gangsta Masterlist

[blackwaves]

i went through a decent amount of biographical information on higuchi ichiyo before i touched the translations of her writing and: i think i've seen people commenting on her unrequited love for her literary mentor as adjacent to her love for akutagawa, which is understandable + probably a part of it, but the aspect of it that had eluded me before was that... akutagawa doesn't have many similarities with that mentor beyond higuchi's senpainoticeme-isms (/affectionate).

the mentor in question was insincere and charismatic and untrustworthy, and ichiyo was bitterly disappointed in + eventually disillusioned by him. which this is just to say that it took going through her prose writing to see: what ichiyo did love that i think asagiri pulled from was unfortunate characters who were raw/unpolished/sincere/angry and just needed a chance to be saved.

[shiraishi--kanade]

"Saki glue theory more like Mizuki glue theory-" sorry to be a killjoy but Mizuki glue theory literally has even less to back it up than the first one does. Stop trying to make one character to be more important than the others stopppp appreciate them on their own merit. Dammit

[itspileofgoodthings]

I don’t even fully know why but “what do I do when I miss you so much?” / “Just wait, and pray desperately” was a knife to my heart in the best way.

[gwyns]

when did this weird mindset of authors "needing" to interact with their fans start? y'all are getting more parasocial by the day

[pigeon-butch]

I certainly have my own concerns about the treatment of moo deng but um. well i think some of you may just be racist

[its-all-papaya]

[me being rlly normal, processing my current personal angst in a healthy way]:

“My job’s alright,” Lando concedes, “I’m lucky that I get to do it. I like it a lot of the time. I’m just… not sure that it’s the best thing for me. Anymore.” He can feel his heartbeat in his temples and his throat and his lip where it’s caught between his teeth. He’s never actually said it out loud, that. Not sure who he’d even say it to. Oscar twists a little on the sofa so they’re facing each other more directly, “Can you not do something else, then?” “I don’t know,” Lando doesn’t really want to talk about it, even if the soft, attentive look the conversation’s put on Oscar’s face is sort of nice, “It feels too late to just switch for no reason.” Oscar lifts an eyebrow, “Well it wouldn’t be for no reason. It would be to make you happier. That’s a good enough reason.” Lando puffs air out through his lips. His feet drop back to the floor, tension going out of him in a fell swoop that leaves him sort of curled on his side, blinking up at Oscar’s warm brown eyes. Steady. “Scary, innit? Making a choice like that?” he whispers up at them.

[wonder-worker]

"[Elizabeth Woodville] was the only member of [Crown Prince Edward of Westminster's] original 1471 council not already on the king’s council and her name headed the list of those appointed as administrators in Wales during Edward’s minority. [She remained on the council after it was expanded in 1473 and granted additional governing and judicial powers]."

"In 1478 Prince Richard married the Mowbray heiress. Like his elder brother he had a chancellor, seal, household and council to manage his estates. His council, like that of Prince Edward, comprised the queen [Elizabeth Woodville] and a group of magnates and bishops, few of whom were Woodville supporters. [...] It was Elizabeth who mattered, for Richard resided with her and Rivers treated his affairs as their own."

— J.L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503 / Michael Hicks, Richard III and his Rivals: Magnates and their Motives in the Wars of the Roses