#But this is an example of the system failing the people.

[moaninmoonen]

Videos Show Teen Accused of Trashing Baby Rushing to Bathroom, Staff Detailing Gruesome Crime Scene

Bodycam: Teen Accused of Dumping Dead Baby in Trash Arrested for Murder in Front of Hysterical Mom

Law&Crime Network

#Youtube #This kind of shit enrages me. This girl was 19 years old and obviously not educated properly. There is no condoning what she did #But this is an example of the system failing the people. #The youth are forced by law to sit in a steel chair in school for the entirety of their formative years and yet shit like this happens #If the system was so concerned about babies being left in dumpsters #Then maybe you should actually start teaching children the importance of real life instead of fucking algebra #This young woman is clearly uneducated and this should be the fault of the adults not knowing how to raise and protect a child #My favourite part is in the second video just after the 5min mark #This fucking cop makes a remark about how they could arrest the mother for “obstruction” when she was only protecting her daughter #Disgusting and a perfect example of these fucking cops playing shit by their books and not having an ounce of humanity #Charging this 19 yo with murder. Fucking MURDER #This wouldn't happen to me because my children would know better. #Parents should remember this and the importance of educating their child properly rather than just expecting the system to do it #Because this is the system at work...

[reduxskullduggerry]

just watched shiny happy people and it was an ok docuseries overall (if you don't know it's a documentary about the duggar family and fundamentalism/IBLP/Bill Gothard more generally), but as with other documentaries in this style, it often heavily covers the aspects of misogyny, patriarchy, and abuse (which are very important to cover!), but really only minimally focuses (if at all) on the depth to which Christian fundamentalism is at its core about advancing white supremacy and white supremacist goals. Like they spend an episode talking about how the purpose of families having as many children as possible is to push them into conservative leadership (with the ultimate goal of creating Christian theocracy), but they only focus on how they want to pass like anti-abortion stuff not their assuredly racist positions otherwise. Like focusing solely on the narratives and abuse of white women (and some white men) from the perspective of these people means that you only hear their limited perspective on the situation. Which means they've grown enough to understand how this religion/cult/sect oppressed them but not anyone different from them. non-white people are almost entirely absent from the series outside of when white people go/have gone on mission trips and the documentary makers never confront the people who they interviewed who've gone on mission trips about the neocolonialism they're engaging in through these trips. Even from the perspective of you've spent your whole life hearing this narrative of Christianity that you know is fucked up and terrible for you, but then you think you've unlearned all of this enough to go give christian teachings to others without perpetuating these same narratives?? Like one (professor?) guy mentions racism all of once and it's like?? I also feel like the documentary makers in spite of how political this documentary is fail to address the politics of those they are interviewing. They interview several people close to the duggar family/are in the duggar family who are like still very conservative and present their narrative uncritically. anyway in conclusion, documentaries on institutions like iblp and the catholic church etc often focus solely on the oppression faced by white women and children in that institution without examining the larger context of white supremacy and racism that kind of patriachy is based in and they should change that

#i feel like its because the documentary makers failed to fully understand systemic oppression rather than just individualized examples of it #like they do talk about how abuse is enabled by many actors but they really tend to focus far more on the individual abuser(s) in the story #also i havent checked but the two directors are women and i would guess are likely to be white women #shiny happy people #duggar family

[moodr1ng]

i watch (/listen to) a lot of youtube vids/essays about writing and worldbuilding but eventually their usefulness to me (ESPECIALLY the worldbuilding ones) is always limited by the youtubers assumption that i am 1. writing sci-fi or fantasy, that my story will feature clear protagonists and antagonists, and that i will be writing in order to move forward a clear, action-based plot, and there seems to be no consideration towards the fact some people write like. other stuff than ya and high fantasy. 2. that their ideas of how societies or people or cultures or religions or whatever else function are universal, when in fact basically all these youtubers are white and culturally christian and constantly, evidently limited by their perspective lol

#im not even looking at religion worldbuilding videos bc they.. are so reductive #to them religion is all either christianity or pop culture greek mythos.. #they keep thinking their worldbuilding is so out there bc they put in weird concepts or alien races or whatever #but.. its still just. western christian culture repackaged. #they always fail to actually make a world there. #also they pontificate about avatar all the time #but interestingly fail to remember that when it comes to spirituality for example? #and tbh like. reference anything other than tolkien lovecraft and avatar please. there is more to worldbuilding. #i keep thinking 'my worldbuilding is clearly not original bc its just based on real world cultures w a different history' #but frankly actually. some people who pride themselves on their worldbuilding are doing more derivative stuff #all the while claiming to be doing stuff thats so different and out there #but the only different thing they can think of is fantastical/futuristic elements. #they cant imagine stepping out of the systems they currently live in or a poor rendering of medieval europe

[earhartsease]

this is so on the nose

just adding (since it seems to have stirred some people up) that obviously this is not an absolute - it just points to how some oppressive systems (for example) rely on bad faith to cover for their systems doing what they're really intended to do by claiming that they're still in progress - but there are plenty of other less bad faith examples too that are more to do with poorly thought out or poorly implemented plans

[ID: post by The Garantine quoting the start of a wikipedia article

Very tired of hearing about what the intentions are. If a system constantly produces a different outcome than the one it is "intended" for then it's perfectly reasonable to assume the actual intention is the outcome it continues to produce.

beginning of quoted article below reads as follows:

The purpose of a system is what it does

The purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID) is a systems thinking heuristic coined by Stafford Beer, who observed that there is "no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do." The term is widely used by systems theorists, and is generally invoked to counter the notion that the purpose of a system can be read from the intentions of those who design, operate, or promote it. When a system's side effects or unintended consequences reveal that its behavior is poorly understood, then the POSIWID perspective can balance political understandings of system behavior with a more straightforwardly descriptive view.

ID ends]

#cw war in the comments

[nullcoast]

Ngl after a certain point, posts where there's one person who is clearly not in their right mind (or a child), with another person being like "lol how stupid are you take a chill pill haha" and milking the clout it gets. It feels the same as Instagram videos of ppl on the subway having a psychiatric and/or drug related episode. Like This literally isn't funny. Why are you still recording. You are actively worsening the mental state, and benefitting off of it via clout, of someone who is clearly unwell.

It's not just a conceptual opposite anymore, it's someone who does not have a grip on reality and we have no idea how they could be impacted by continued engagement. As "funny" as that might be to you. It's nasty to see 3rd person

Why do we treat unwell people, failed by our society, as public spectacles of entertainment? What happens if you put the camera down and go over and fucking help? Or instead of reblogging your snappy reply, send a PRIVATE message of kindness? Or just leave them fucking alone

#it's so funny to see the world we live in fail an entire population of people #and leave them wounded and broken people with no support #it's sooooo funny how crazy they get let's keep egging it on it's sooooo fucking funny bro #this applies even for like. TikTok's of like trailer park white ladies talking about q coming to save them #that shit ain't funny and it's not an example of my political opponent. that's someone I care about who needs systemic justice

[kawaiijellymonster]

Me a scientist (biochemist and anthropologist) vs my professor a gender studies specialist and artist. GO

#im losing my fucking mind #she said to write a final paper addressing an apocalypse that is socially caused and important to us #so i wrote a paper about structural failings in the healthcare system leaves poor people in vulnerable situations to get drug resistant #strains of diseases which can turn into a superbug and kill everyone #and then we were talking about the paper bc i wanted to use a barely related example #and she was like 'apply the idea of your racist sexist superbug onto this new example' in her mind the superbug is like a rampant thing #attacking low income racialized minorities and im saying like this is a real thing that could happen and is scientifically based #i dont know how to imagine a disease that is inherently racist and sexist bc its an asshole??? idek

[o-craven-canto]

Even in a purely, coldly utilitarian moral system, there are three questions to ask before accepting harmful or destructive Means because they ostensibly lead to a better End:

Do the Means lead to some other negative End, in addition to the intended one? The classical example of the naïve utilitarian doctor who kills a patient in order to harvest their organs and save five patients, in practice, if accepted, leads to general loss of trust in doctors and hospitals and therefore to much greater loss of life; hence, doctors should follow a hard rule of not killing patients to harvest their organs, even if this might save more lives in the shortest term.

Are the Means necessary in order to achieve the End? The negative utility of atrocious Means still ends up in the final account along with the supposed positive utility of the End (and without the penalty for uncertainty that the latter should arguably be given). The Means are as much part of the final state as the End.

Do the Means, in fact, lead to the End? Any consequentialist justification for an atrocity-for-the-greater-good automatically fails if the atrocity does not plausibly bring out the greater good, even before any other consideration is taken. It's all well and good to say that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, but (ignoring for the moment that people are arguably owed more consideration than eggs) a large chunk of the 20th century was a sustained and furious festival of egg-crushing and egg-trampling that resulted in precisely zero omelettes.

#ethics #utilitarianism #ruminations

[probablyasocialecologist]

Despite Sparta’s reputation for superior fighting, Spartan armies were as likely to lose battles as to win them, especially against peer opponents such as other Greek city-states. Sparta defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian War—but only by accepting Persian money to do it, reopening the door to Persian influence in the Aegean, which Greek victories at Plataea and Salamis nearly a century early had closed. Famous Spartan victories at Plataea and Mantinea were matched by consequential defeats at Pylos, Arginusae, and ultimately Leuctra. That last defeat at Leuctra, delivered by Thebes a mere 33 years after Sparta’s triumph over Athens, broke the back of Spartan power permanently, reducing Sparta to the status of a second-class power from which it never recovered. Sparta was one of the largest Greek city-states in the classical period, yet it struggled to achieve meaningful political objectives; the result of Spartan arms abroad was mostly failure. Sparta was particularly poor at logistics; while Athens could maintain armies across the Eastern Mediterranean, Sparta repeatedly struggled to keep an army in the field even within Greece. Indeed, Sparta spent the entirety of the initial phase of the Peloponnesian War, the Archidamian War (431-421 B.C.), failing to solve the basic logistical problem of operating long term in Attica, less than 150 miles overland from Sparta and just a few days on foot from the nearest friendly major port and market, Corinth. The Spartans were at best tactically and strategically uncreative. Tactically, Sparta employed the phalanx, a close-order shield and spear formation. But while elements of the hoplite phalanx are often presented in popular culture as uniquely Spartan, the formation and its equipment were common among the Greeks from at least the early fifth century, if not earlier. And beyond the phalanx, the Spartans were not innovators, slow to experiment with new tactics, combined arms, and naval operations. Instead, Spartan leaders consistently tried to solve their military problems with pitched hoplite battles. Spartan efforts to compel friendship by hoplite battle were particularly unsuccessful, as with the failed Spartan efforts to compel Corinth to rejoin the Spartan-led Peloponnesian League by force during the Corinthian War. Sparta’s military mediocrity seems inexplicable given the city-state’s popular reputation as a highly militarized society, but modern scholarship has shown that this, too, is mostly a mirage. The agoge, Sparta’s rearing system for citizen boys, frequently represented in popular culture as akin to an intense military bootcamp, in fact included no arms training or military drills and was primarily designed to instill obedience and conformity rather than skill at arms or tactics. In order to instill that obedience, the older boys were encouraged to police the younger boys with violence, with the result that even in adulthood Spartan citizens were liable to settle disputes with their fists, a tendency that predictably made them poor diplomats. But while Sparta’s military performance was merely mediocre, no better or worse than its Greek neighbors, Spartan politics makes it an exceptionally bad example for citizens or soldiers in a modern free society. Modern scholars continue to debate the degree to which ancient Sparta exercised a unique tyranny of the state over the lives of individual Spartan citizens. However, the Spartan citizenry represented only a tiny minority of people in Sparta, likely never more than 15 percent, including women of citizen status (who could not vote or hold office). Instead, the vast majority of people in Sparta, between 65 and 85 percent, were enslaved helots. (The remainder of the population was confined to Sparta’s bewildering array of noncitizen underclasses.) The figure is staggering, far higher than any other ancient Mediterranean state or, for instance, the antebellum American South, rightly termed a slave society with a third of its people enslaved.

#sparta #ancient history #greek history

[reachartwork]

how to write fight scenes

many people have told me that Chum has good fight scenes. a small subset of those people have asked me on advice for how to write fight scenes. i am busy procrastinating, so i have distilled my general ethos on fight scenes into four important points. followed by a homework assignment.

Fight scenes take place on two axii - the physical and the intellectual. For the most interesting fight scenes, neither character should have a full inventory of the other's abilities, equipment, fighting style, etc. This gives you an opportunity to pull out surprises, but, more importantly, turns each fight into a jockeying of minds, as all characters involved have to puzzle out what's going on in real time. This is especially pertinent for settings with power systems. It feels more earned if the characters are trying to deduce the limitations and reach of the opponent's power rather than the opponent simply explaining it to them (like in Bleach. Don't do that). 1a. Have characters be incorrect in their assumptions sometimes, leading to them making mistakes that require them to correct their internal models of an opponent under extreme pressure. 1b. If you really have to have a character explain their powers to someone there should be a damn good reason for it. The best reason is "they are lying". The second best reason is "their power requires it for some reason".

Make sure your blows actually have weight. When characters are wailing at each other for paragraphs and paragraphs and nothing happens, it feels like watching rock 'em sock 'em robots. They beat each other up, and then the fight ends with a decisive blow. Not interesting! Each character has goals that will influence what their victory condition is, and each character has a physical body that takes damage over the course of a fight. If someone is punched in the gut and coughs up blood, that's an injury! It should have an impact on them not just for the fight but long term. Fights that go longer than "fist meets head, head meets floor" typically have a 'break-down' - each character getting sloppier and weaker as they bruise, batter, and break their opponent, until victory is achieved with the last person standing. this keeps things tense and interesting.

I like to actually plan out my fight scenes beat for beat and blow for blow, including a: the thought process of each character leading to that attempted action, b: what they are trying to do, and c: how it succeeds or fails. In fights with more than two people, I like to use graph paper (or an Excel spreadsheet with the rows turned into squares) to keep track of positions and facings over time.

Don't be afraid to give your characters limitations, because that means they can be discovered by the other character and preyed upon, which produces interesting ebbs and flows in the fight. A gunslinger is considerably less useful in a melee with their gun disarmed. A swordsman might not know how to box if their sword is destroyed. If they have powers, consider what they have to do to make them activate, if it exhausts them to use, how they can be turned off, if at all. Consider the practical applications. Example: In Chum, there are many individuals with pyrokinetic superpowers, and none of them have "think something on fire" superpowers. Small-time filler villain Aaron McKinley can ignite anything he's looking at, and suddenly the fight scenes begin constructing themselves, as Aaron's eyes and the direction of his gaze become an incredibly relevant factor.

if you have reached this far in this essay I am giving you homework. Go watch the hallway fight in Oldboy and then novelize it. Then, watch it again every week for the rest of your life, and you will become good at writing fight scenes.

as with all pieces of advice these are not hard and fast rules (except watching the oldboy hallway fight repeatedly) but general guidelines to be considered and then broken when it would produce an interesting outcome to do so.

okay have a good day. and go read chum.

#writing #creative writing #writing tip #writing prompt #pro tip! #long post

[psychotrenny]

The way that US Liberals talks about voting is such a classic example of how American Civil Religion has absolutely rotted their minds. Like voting isn't a tool to achieve political ends; it's a ritual that you are morally obligated to partake in to maintain the spiritual health of the nation. You don't use voting as a strategy in order to directly affect the material conditions of the world, giving power to representatives who will pursue specific policies and holding them accountable if they fail. No, goodness and justice will metaphysically spring from the wellspring of democracy as long as everyone does their part to keep it full. As long as everyone does their part to honour the Founding Fathers and the core values of the nation then everything will be in order, the system will function as it should and all world's problems will naturally solve themselves. If this isn't happening then it means not enough people voted hard enough.

Denying your vote isn't a a tactic you can use to affect politics; it's a violation of your sacred duty. Denying your vote in response to political failure makes as much sense as denying your prayers and sacrifice after a bad harvest. Clearly the problem here was your lack of devotion and you aren't gonna solve it by reducing your devotion even further. You're just letting the forces of evil win; you might as well be directly in league with them.

Like I'm not even a believer in Liberal Democracy and yet the way that Yanks talk about it simply boggles my mind; utterly detached from anything resembling the material conditions of the world we live in. Like I can think of no other way to describe it but a religious belief in the ontological superiority of their institutions and that they need only faithful participation to properly function. A ridiculous way to approach politics and yet one that holds enough mainstream acceptance that you are forced take it seriously. Very unfortunate for any who hold hope of meaningful change through electorialism, but convenient to those who wish to maintain the status quo

#stella speaks

[sleepy-writes-stuff]

DP X DC PROMPT #26

(I'm feeling angsty today.)

(#) = Notes at the end of post

(*) = Just me building off of other ideas.

✦

Going Supernova

The GIW have discovered his identity, and they don't waste time on using this knowledge to their advantage. They spent the last six months creating a weapon that not only hurts ghosts but absolutely obliterates them down to their very cores. After testing it for so long on minor ghosts and then discovering the local ghostly menace's secret, they have the bright idea to make an example out of Danny.

They ambush him as he's fighting the invading ghost of the day. Their first shot misses and hits the ghost they're fighting. As soon as the shot lands, the ghost freezes in place with a look of dread and horror.

They look up at Danny with tears in their eyes and has only a few precious seconds to say, "Run," before their skin cracks and they shatter, the miniscule shards evaporating into nothingness.

Danny is petrified and grief-stricken over what he just witnessed that he doesn't have the time to even twitch before the GIW lock their sights back onto him and shoot him in the back.

Agony consumes him. His chest burns, and his ribs rattle with the effort it takes for him to breathe through the pain. The civilians who were still on the scene gasped in horror as they watched their local hero's chest start to crack and glow from within.

What the GIW didn't know was that Danny had just recently elevated to Ancient status due to helping Clockwork with the timestream. That and with his status as a halfa, what they did will end in nothing but disaster. (1)

Danny spots his parents, sister, and friends in the crowd. His parents watched in awe and excitement while his Jazz, Sam, and Tucker looked at him with horror-stricken disbelief. Knowing what's to come and not having enough time to explain, he gives them a wobbly smile.

"I'm so sorry."

He whips around and rockets straight up into the sky. He breaks through the atmosphere in a matter of seconds and continues to fly at breakneck speed away from the little green-blue planet he calls home. He has to get away. He can't destabilize so close to them. He has to go even further.

His form is steadily breaking off into pieces as his human and ghost half fight and fail to keep him together. He can feel his human half dying and his ghost half barely holding on by a thread. He can't stop, though. If he stops here, the Earth will be destroyed from the backlash.

He had no worry for himself. After all, stars die all the time. That doesn't mean that's the end for them. They just take on a new form or even help breathe new planets and galaxies into life.

'A star's death is not the end!' He comforts himself.

He only makes it a few light-years further before his energy fades out to nothing, and he slows to a halt. It's only then that Danny starts to panic alone in the vacuum of space. The furthest he's even been from home and the comfort of his friends and family.

"No. No, no, no, no." He repeats over and over. "Not far enough. Not far enough! I'm still too close!!" (2)

His stuttering heart rabbits inside his chest along with his crumbling core. He hugs himself tight with the false hope that maybe that would stop himself from falling apart. He cries for his family, his friends, his planet. His life and lives he's about to take through no fault of his own.

Because for a star to give life, they must first destroy. (3)

"I'm sorry. I-I'm so sorry! Please!"

He sobs into his hands as the light of his core pulses one final time.

"Please." He whispers brokenly.

His core shatters, and he screams for the entire cosmos to hear. His form expands with immeasurable force and shakes the very foundations of creation. His desperate attempt to spare the Earth from his self-destruction was in vain as the waves of his shattered core ravaged the solar system and destroyed everything within its path.

The countless people and other creatures on Earth didn't even have time to blink before they were completely eradicated. Quick and painless but nonetheless gone.

It took centuries for everything to settle again.

It wasn't until countless millennium passed that the solar system began to take shape again. However, everything was reshaped and put back together as though with a child's memory of what it used to be from so long ago. Some things were bound to be different, like how Mars gained its own population of intelligent humanoid creatures. How Earth's own population started to develop extraordinary abilities and magic was able to be used more freely outside of supernatural species.

Soon, there were heroes popping up all over the universe of all shapes, sizes, and species. Some people were even reborn. They started remembering a life that, as far as they knew, never actually existed. How could it? None of the people they were before showed up in any records. There were records, of course. They just, unfortunately, no longer existed.

No one knew why, either. At least not until a magic user stumbled upon a tome belonging to what they knew as the Underworld. It told the story of a young boy who died too young and was destroyed from what he became afterward. How his destruction also destroyed the world despite the boy's efforts to save it.

This story was shared with the masses of people experiencing these memories of other lives, including the heroes who took up the mantle of keeping the Earth and other corners of the galaxy safe. They mourned the loss of a life so young, so bright and full of potential. They hoped that wherever the child ended up, that they were at peace.

Little did they know, the child was part of the universe itself, his very being woven into the fabric that makes up the night sky and everything that lays beyond. They can't see or hear him, but that precious child--the Ancient of Space--laid curled around the Milky Way itself with Earth cradled gently in his trembling hands.

✦

(1) Because of his status as the new Ancient of Space and the fact that he is half human/alive is the reason his destabilization took longer than the ghost he was previously fighting. An Ancient has immense power of the aspect of reality they control, and his human half was desperately trying to keep him alive. He can't live without his ghost half, though. It was also the power of his Ancient status that made his destabilization so explosive and damaging. However, him being a halfa is also what saved his existence in the end and allows him to still continue to be the Ancient of Space, as Space itself is always in a state of dying and rebirth. It just took several thousands of years to pull himself back into a semblance of what he previously was, but obviously irrevocably changed.

(2) According to scientists a supernova would have to be within 30-50 light-years to trigger a mass extinction on Earth. To be actually completely safe from one, however, it'd have to be 160 or more light-years away. Danny didn't even make it to 20 light-years before his core self-destructed, which is why he was panicking.

(3) As I'm sure most of you know, supernovae are essential to creating life, but that life is preceded by the death of said star.

(*) I haven't really thought of who would be reborn into which character. I originally thought of Jack Fenton being reborn as Bruce Wayne, but Bruce only disguises himself as a himbo while Jack actually is one. The only reason I thought it would work out it because 1) Jack's paranoia about ghosts and translating into Bruce's own paranoia 2) him regaining his past memories would explain his propensity to collect black-haired, blue eyed children because of his loss of Danny and 3) him and his relationship with Jason after he came back as Red Hood.

Other than that, I can't think of who any of the other characters might be. You can decide!

#dp x dc #dc x dp #dpxdc #danny goes supernova #the giw fuck up #but when don't they #ancient of space danny #danny's destruction destroys the universe and everyone in it #time passes and he eventually regains enough of a form and consciousness to put it back together #but not a 1:1 recreation #several millennium of existence is bound to make the memory foggy #and thus the DCU is born! #some but not all characters have memories of their past lives before the universe was destroyed #they're yours to decide #danny did self destruct but he is NOT permanently gone #space has a natural cycle of death and rebirth #danny is still the ancient of space #the people sympathize and mourn what happened to danny #they think he's gone but he's not #your decision if they do discover he's still around tho! #danny phantom crossover #dp x dc crossover #dp x dc prompt #writing prompt #prompt #sleepy writes stuff

[elucubrare]

What are your biggest turn-offs when reading/watching historical fiction or retellings of myths?

this is really complicated - i can put it in two boxes, both of which are packed very full.

disconnection from the material reality of the past

when characters display a very specifically modern mindset (about social issues especially, but other stuff too)

(I also get bothered by some kinds of modern language - I don't mind it when, idk, an author uses "sensible" with the modern connotation of "practical" and not the 18th century "emotional" or "empathetic", but "yeah" or "okay," or even, as i found out when someone used it in medieval fantasy, "holy shit" will get on my nerves.)

there are modern things where (made up example!) a character who's supposed to be a cook will talk about making caprese salad for a fancy restaurant in December, and someone snarking on the book will say "yeah, right, they should know better than to make something that depends on a fresh summer vegetable!" and even with greenhouses, that's pretty fair. and that's even more extreme in the past. it's 1650 in Verona, it's December, you cannot obtain fresh tomatoes. i don't think this means that people in the past were, necessarily, more emotionally or spiritually in tune with the cycle of the year, or the labor it took to get clothes, or furniture, or any other material item, and of course wealth can insulate people from some of that difficulty, but it does mean that the seasons had more direct impact on people's lives. It's possible to, for example, buy clothes ready-made, but for anything fancy, it's more likely that it'll be made to fit if it's new, or altered extensively and painstakingly if it's not. that means that tearing or staining a fancy dress isn't just an issue of looking bad - you can't just replace it, and you probably won't throw it out - you figure out how to reuse it. those concerns of access to material goods are just a lot closer to the surface of the world than they often are now.

my objections to modern attitudes about the world are not that people in the past 100% accepted the views of their contemporaries - there were always people who didn't, and it makes sense that a protagonist would be one of them. but people wouldn't phrase those objections in the same way that modern people would - say your main character doesn't want a woman accused of being a witch burned. "God's power is such that the Devil cannot give this woman the ability to sour milk" is most likely going to be more persuasive to the crowd than "witches aren't real." and sometimes that's rough - it's not super fun to read about a Roman with Roman attitudes about provincial wars, or slavery in the city, but I put something down because a Roman character said (in internal dialogue) that he was disgusted to see that a man had been tortured because "Romans simply didn't do that." Historical Romans did do that, routinely - a slave could not testify in a law court unless they had been tortured. Even with distasteful things like that, I'd much rather it just be glossed over than to have them say the "correct" modern thing. It just makes it feel too much like the theme park version of the culture.

Both of these are because of specific things I come to historical fiction for - I want that sense of alienation, the gulf of experience. I hate that most historical fiction (and fantasy set in semi-recognizable periods) characters don't really care about Honor, except as a joke, because I love when characters organize their lives around arcane rules and systems that cause tiny things to escalate into blood feud. I just think they're neat! I like it when people's worldviews are shaped by their lack of scientific certainty about what causes crops to fail! If I wanted to read about people who thought and acted like me, and had lives that were mostly similar to mine, only cooler, I'd just read contemporary fiction.

#my thoughts on...

[stairset]

For the record I’m not gonna add more to that post cause internet arguments are dumb and pointless especially if it’s about Star Wars and normally I just avoid them but I’m tired and got annoyed but I don’t wanna keep bothering that person nor do I want them to keep bothering me but just know that they got to the point where they started blatantly contradicting themselves and couldn’t even decide which canon they’re talking about which means I automatically win

#sw fans will have an argument stemming from a scene from a disney canon show #then i cite a bunch of examples from other disney canon materials #then suddenly disney canon doesn't matter and only lucas's personal canon matters #but then i mention something lucas said and suddenly his canon doesn't matter because uuuh death of the author #''death of the author'' isn't a get out of jail free card for not picking which canon you're going with or going by no canon at all #especially cause death of the author is controversial for a reason #some people think you can completely detach a work from the creator's intent but others would disagree with that #but no matter which way you lean you can't just say ''only the creator's canon matters'' #and then say ''actually fuck the creator his intent doesn't matter'' IN THE SAME POST #you can't have it both ways you gotta PICK ONE #so no just saying ''death of the author'' isn't an automatic win #this isn't even just about that specific post this shit is EVERYWHERE in the sw fandom that's why i'm so annoyed #and i think a good chunk of the blame lies with those clickbait YOU DIDN'T KNOW THIS THIS CHANGES EVBERYTHING videos #cause i only know of maybe 1 or 2 sw youtubers that a) make it clear which canon they're talking about #and b) only present the straight facts and don't treat their personal interpretations or theories as objectively correct #most of them fail to do either of those and people take them at face value and that's why no one can agree on anything #ANYWAY now that i got that outta my system i'm dropping it now we'll return to your regularly scheduled bullshit tomorrow #shut up tristan

[picturejasper20]

Steven Universe as a character is someone who has been mischaracterized and flanderized over the years, to the point people who aren't into the fandom or haven't watched the show believe that mischaracterization to be a fact rather that a product that comes from memes and jokes

The truth is that Steven often fights in the series when it is needed, usually by fusing with someone else like Connie or Amethyst since he is still developing his powers in the original series. He doesn't cry when he has to fight back or defend himself, with exception if the person attacking is someone he considers a friend. Because, yes, for a 14-15 old teenager it isn't fun having to do something like that and it can be traumatic.

He also doesn't start to cry the moment someone refuses to change their mind or is being mean. He often isn't afraid to be sarcastic or call that person out. He didn't cry when Aquamarine mocked him in ¨Stuck Together¨ nor when Jasper didn't apologize for poofing Amethyst in ¨Crack the Whip¨

However, what we see is sometimes him blaming himself for not being able to help people that, more often than not, have been hurt by Rose Quartz, his mother, in some way. After Season 3, Steven fears a lot that he is going to become like Rose and he is going to hurt people the way like she did.

In general Steven deals with an Atlas complex in the show. He feels like he has to fix his mother mistakes and deal with ¨what she left behind¨ even when Rose wanted for him to be his own person as seen in the tape she left for him as it was revealed in the episode ¨Lion 4: The Alternate Ending¨.

Steven also defines his identity a lot for being to help other people and fix their problems. He believes that he has to be ¨useful¨ for others. So when he believes that he failed to help someone, that may lead him to think that he isn't living up to his ¨purpose¨ or that he is a failure as a person.

In reality, he isn't that much different from other hero protagonists from other animated shows. Those who are kind and emphatic and willing to listen to other people and give them a second chance if the person changes their ways. You probably like an animated show that has a protagonist like this. (Who was probably taken inspiration from Steven if the series came out after SU).

The main difference, i think, is that Steven goes a bit more than those protagonists do when it comes to listening to other people, understand their motivations and give them another chance if they regret their actions. A lot has to do with how he is aware that his enemies (usually gems) act the way the do because of the system they were born into rather ¨they are evil just because¨. He gets that their motivations come from the system that hurt them or lead them to believe that their actions are justified.

Another common mischaracterization is that Steven becomes super buddies with every person he helps...when this isn't always the case. There are some occasions that Steven shows discomfort around people who he has given a second chance. Just because he gives them a second chance doesn't mean that he immediately considers them close friends, maybe allies at best.

A good example of this is the gif above of Steven's interactions with White Diamond in ¨Homeworld Bound¨. White Diamond touches Steven very close to where his gem is- which makes Steven distressed since in his battle again White, she ripped his gem out to prove that Pink was still ¨alive¨. In most of the episode Steven shows to be very uncomfortable around the Diamonds and Spinel, to some extent. They bring him bad memories, which is the main reason he has been doing everything to avoid going to them to ask for their help until this point in Steven Universe Future. He even almost accidentally hurts White's gem by smashing her head against a pillar when she lets him control her to talk to himself. This being result of a intrusive ¨vengeful¨ thought.

I wouldn't say that Steven hates the Diamonds,but- he doesn't want to be their friend neither and wants to avoid in general because he feels nervous and bad around them. It's something like ¨I'm glad that you are changing but i don't want to be associated with you. Please, i would appreciate if you kept your distance from me.¨ dynamic.

On last point, Steven is someone who usually pushes his feelings down in certain situations and buries them down, which has led him to have strong emotional outbursts in bad moments. He usually prefers to ignore his own problems and take priority on others. Again, this comes a lot from his desire to be useful and be needed, making him trying to ignore how he feels about certain people and pretend that he is doing fine.

This explains why we don't see him lash out that much to others in the original series, and, why he feels so frustrated and angry in Future, since all that anger and negative feelings can't no longer be ignored as they used to and they are having a negative impact in Steven's mental health. This, of course, isn't meant to be seen is a healthy coping mechanism. It is in fact potrayed as something pretty self-destructive for Steven, as a huge flaw of his, that over time he comes to learn that it isn't the best way for him to deal with his problems.

These are some of the most common misconceptions i have seen about Steven's character online. I could go in more depth with some of them but i think the points should be clear enough. This could be considered a general analysis of how Steven is as a character and how he operates, leaving aside more specific things that can be covered in other posts.

#steven universe #steven quartz universe #steven universe future #rose quartz #su analysis

[nothorses]

You guys love suggesting trans women are aligned with males and trans men are aligned with females so badly that it's just gross at this point, transphobia with progressive wording is still transphobia ❤️

Yall really love your binaries, huh? Genuinely wild that you think the only way a trans person can be valid is by being widely socially recognized as a single binary gender accurate to the single binary gender they identify with.

I for one am a firm believer in the fact that transphobia exists, and as such, trans people are positioned outside of the cis man/cis woman socio-political binary & allowed access to neither unless and until it conditionally supports the system's ability to do them harm, like, for example, by:

aligning trans women with women when enacting misogyny against them, but not when valuing (mostly white) women as pure, valuable, and worthy of protection

aligning trans women with men when fearmongering about "dangerous male predators infiltrating women's bathrooms" (i.e. weaponizing autonomy granted by the patriarchy), but viewing them as "failed men" otherwise, and generally not valuing them as men in the context of determining who is deserving of male privilege

aligning trans men with men when discussing the "horrors" of transition- acne, body hair, balding, bottom growth, "becoming ugly"- but not when valuing men as worthy of male privilege, or when understanding them to be autonomous

aligning trans men with women when enacting misogyny against them (typically revoking autonomy), but not when valuing (mostly white) women as inherently "safe" or The Victim; or otherwise understanding them to be "traitors" to womanhood

Trans people occupy a different social/political position than cis people do. This is not new information.

You shouldn't be participating in gender-related discourse if you genuinely cannot grasp the idea that there might be a third experience.

[yourtongzhihazel]

The official ideology of the united states is Liberalism. Most yankees (and many westerners) are Liberals by default. Liberalism is the ideological framework used to justify the establishment of a global capitalist system and later, its continued existence. It is an ideology founded on abstract ideals. It is an ideology founded on idealism. Because of this, the Liberal world analysis makes no sense when applied to the real world. One such example is the liberal critique of billionaires largely boiling down to a moral failing on individual billionaires, rather than the result of a system designed to create them, and when a systemic critique is made, the solution offered is one as abstract as "more taxes" or "vote harder".

You, as a marxist, by bending over backwards to incorporate liberals while they make no steps in understanding politics in a material lens turn yourself into a liberal as well. To educate you must push; you must agitate. Therefore, you have to make your interlocutors engage on your terms: one of materialism not idealism. To that end you must analyze the material harms of the liberal world order, including imperialism. At the same time, you must also build a solution to the liberal order using the material gains of socialism, constantly reminding them that abstract ideas of "freedom", "democracy", or "liberty" does fuck all to feed a family, vaccinate children, or liberate an oppressed people.

#i hate liberals #mmp #marxism