Tumgik
#opinion*
very-straight-blog · 3 days
Text
I'm obsessed with Aegon-Sunfyre connection. Aegon is literally like: "I don't want to be king and this whole situation sucks, but at least I'll put the image of my dearest soulmate on every possible surface in the capital." I meeeaaan.
254 notes · View notes
Note
I'm not puke anon, but I will admit I had similar thoughts when she first announced TTPD / released the track list. With the huge caveat that I know nothing about their relationship or them personally, I'm in camp, "Joe is an okay guy and was good for her at that time in her life" and I was worried that any negativity on the album might be revisionist history.
BUT! I'm reserving judgment because I feel like she always surprises me. I was more of a casual fan when reputation came out and I remember scoffing at the track list because the titles really lean into the stereotyping she experienced at the time and I didn't realize that she was being tongue-in-cheek. I was so surprised when I listened to the songs and they were nothing like I expected. So hoping for good things with TTPD!
These are all such great points and I esp hear you on how reputation was absolutely an intentionally designed bait-and-switch album (one that you would think would be centered on All That Drama but in reality was a love album).
But the one thing I push back on a lot is the 'revisionist history' claim that I see because. Because. Well. It's her history to revise.
And what is the human experience if not continually filtering, learning, relearning, analyzing, reanalyzing, and holding our own personal experiences in our hands as we grow older and learn more and feel more feelings and do more things that we can look on our lives with more hindsight and perspective and ascribe new meaning to what we've been through. And your vision of this person being okay and good for her in her life (while absolutely still possible to be true) was only something you accepted because it was told to you (note by this i mean: one/general/us/royal we/collective) by her.
And I feel like the pre-discomfort people are experiencing w this tracklist (again based on the assumptions of things bc we don't know what these songs actually are) ("He was a good guy but this was also really hard" / "We were great together and I experienced a lot of strife at points of this relationship") is perhaps because of the common thing where admitting we're wrong or changing our minds once we learn new information is fucking hard!
But if you (again one/general/us/etc) feel that way being confronted by a person you thought you knew perhaps not being entirely the way you thought only as a bystander and consumer of her art - how do you think that entire unlearning curve felt for her who actually lived it.
94 notes · View notes
chaoticpandemonium · 3 days
Text
I'm working on a series of paintings and I wondered what colour people most associate with fear. Please tag what colour you invision in detail if you can (like forest green/midnight blue/blood red).
43 notes · View notes
bleucaesura · 3 days
Text
STOLITZØ- OPINIONS
Can I get your peeps feedback on how you feel the story is going so far?
I kinda have a specific direction in mind, but I’d like to know your thoughts on what I’ve done so far.
Do the characters feel like they are fairly accurate to the show?
Is the story fairly plausible?
Am I torturing you too much with the slow burn? 😅
36 notes · View notes
mylight-png · 20 hours
Text
Tumblr media
I've been wondering how to put this feeling into words but then came across this post. I still want to write my own take but I'm in the trenches of exam week so I'm sharing this for now instead.
53 notes · View notes
tombfreak · 3 days
Text
ASPD and being a "bad person"
the backhanded support for aspd
There's a very backhanded type of support for people with ASPD. In attempts to get moral highground and fight against the demonization/stigmatization of the disorder, it's almost entirely watered down to "Oh you just lack empathy and have mean thoughts :)". It's entirely infantilized to the point where people who actually exhibit their real symptoms are just "bad people", or "using their disorder as an excuse for their bad behaviour" because "that's not what ASPD is actually like!!"
Moralizing disorders does nothing but cause harm to people suffering from mental health issues. You cannot cherry pick which presentations of ASPD are deemed acceptable when the whole disorder revolves around being and doing socially unacceptable things.
"It's ok if you lack empathy!" Is the only support I really see for ASPD, which is true, but only if we don't have empathy in ways that they think is acceptable.
I don't have empathy for people of colour, or people with disabilities, or trans folk. My empathy can't just turn on for people who I know deserve it. I can't relate to their struggles, I can't feel for them, I can't even really care. And lacking the empathy required for me to feel these things towards others is exactly what causes me issues in my life. It's socially unacceptable. It's dysfunctionally anti-social.
But thats very much the tip of the iceberg. Lacking empathy isn't even in the DSM-5 criteria for ASPD, and a lot of people with ASPD do experience empathy in their own way.
There's also the issue of "it's ok to be angry, it's ok to have mean thoughts, as long as you don't act on them" or "it's ok to not care, as long as you pretend you do" or "it's ok if you lack empathy as long as you're compassionate"
The issue is that people with ASPD are only supported and accepted if they're in a place where they can conform to prosocial behaviour, which is incredibly difficult to do and does require a degree of recovery. And not a lot of people are willing, or able to, get to that point in recovery.
If you say you support people with mental health issues, then you need to accept the part that actively causes problems as well, even if it makes you uncomfortable. You can't just love the "antisocial personality" and hate the "disorder".
People with ASPD will act in ways that makes them a morally "bad person". That's the entire premise of the disorder. If you water it down to the point where the person suffering has to be good and follow your social standards, then that's not an anti-social disorder anymore.
And I know it's hard to stomach people with ASPD sometimes, especially if they're not in recovery at all. We can be mean, insensitive, aggressive, insulting, morally skewed, or just a complete asshole in general. We can say unacceptable things, we can do wrong, and we're prone to it. You don't have to like someone to support them.
Supporting someone with mental health issues doesn't mean you have to like what they do, or who they are, or be friends with them. You're allowed to remove someone from your life if they're causing issues in yours. Supporting someone with mental health issues means you are able to leave them alone, and not go out of your way to shame them for things currently out of their control.
Yes, recovery is very important, but trust me as a recovering addict and someone with ASPD, you cannot force someone to be better. All they need is to know that they have room to breathe and grow. Support is giving people the space to do that. Backhanded 'support' is saying that you'll let them have that space but only if they currently fit in to your personal standards.
33 notes · View notes
Note
how would harry fare as a vampire? or adopted by carlisle
About as well as any other vampire.
Obviously, depends how this all is happening and if we're remotely canon compliant then Harry's going to go around eating Death Eaters/Voldemort and telling himself that this must be what the prophecy meant in "neither can live while the other survives" (Yes, I know you'll be angry with me for saying this, but believe me, I just reread the chapter where Harry tells himself for three months straight that the prophecy means he'll become an immortal warlord/master of death and he must collect all three trinkets to become a god. I'm sorry. He would do this and be very annoyed that Ron and Hermione don't like it.)
Now, this probably gets Harry killed by the Volturi because Harry will be very focused on being very noticeable to humans/making sure the Death Eaters and Voldemort know that Harry now has supreme power.
As for Carlisle...
Harry would like the idea of him, but I think he wouldn't like the diet and would very quickly conclude what Edward had when he was young which was "I can just eat bad people" and would be very annoyed at Carlisle trying to control him.
35 notes · View notes
racing-is-passion · 2 days
Note
The fact you think someone who's most recent DNFs were crashing in the last lap through driver error is better than Lewis is hilarous. Not to mention Mercedes are experimenting their tractor on Lewis, like they did in 2022 when everyone also thought Russell was better when he wasn't. Literally as soon as the announcement to Ferrari happened, everyone said knew that Lewis would suddenly be 'struggling' when he was best of the rest last year. Because think about it, it's in Mercedes' interest for Lewis to look washed. He dumped them in a humiliating way, they don't care about anymore.
Just say you don't like him? Or don't understand his value? Signing him is similar to the decision Williams made with switching Sargeant for Albon, harsh but a no-brainer. This is for any team in F1, including Red Bull. Because of one thing - hype. No other driver generates as much hype as him, and that's something that can't be replicated with any other driver. This isn't to say he isn't one of the top drivers talent wise, he is. But as we've seen with Bearman and Sainz, put any driver in a good car and they'll perform well. Ferrari's barrier to the championship is the car, not the drivers. If they have a championship winning car next year, they'd win it with both the current drivers and with next year's drivers. The only difference is that the story will be much bigger with Lewis instead of Carlos. And one more thing, this is the last opportunity for Ferrari to have Lewis in their car. I know there's lots of talk that the veterans should retire, but trust me, Fernando and Lewis are still at the top of the game, and when they're gone they will be greatly missed in F1. Instead of questioning why he's been given someone else's seat you should appreciate him while he's here, appreciate that the legendary names of Ferrari and Hamilton have in fact joined together when for so long most people thought it's impossible. Please do more research because you clearly don't understand F1.
One thing first: I never really made a secret about the fact that I'm not a big fan of Lewis Hamilton, I once wrote that in a post already, but I also always said that he is one of the best drivers ever in F1 history and I respect his accomplisments and performances.
I'm also a bit of a fan of Fernando, so it's not that I just don't speak for the drivers that are a bit older, I actually like the idea of Alonso becoming a champion again, 20 years after his last championship, if he should get a top car next year.
Oliver Bearman did a very good job at the Saudi Arabian GP, but he surely wasn't on the level of Charles and probably Carlos, that's for sure. So that wasn't really a good example. But no one was thinking that he would be as good as both of them, because of the circumstances that it was his first ever race and he has never driven the car before.
Lewis is surely still a good driver, but is he still the same that he was in the 2010 years? I really don't think so. And what reason would Mercedes have to let him be worse than he could be? It would only harm Mercedes, because they would get less points and bad publications in the media. Also it wouldn't make Ferrari or Lewis slower next year.
It's true that Ferrari hasn't the car to win the championship, no one except for Red Bull has it right n ow. But I think no one thinks that they'll drive for the championship this year. So it's still about the performances of the two drivers, which are pretty much very close to each other.
It's just my own opinion and how I see it, for me there are these minimal signs that (at least recently) Carlos would be the better decision. Maybe Charles can prove me wrong, then I'd be the last one not t say that I was wrong and Ferrari did the right thing (especially if Lewis will perform great next year.
The hype about Lewis is actually the only big reason for me to sign Lewis to Ferrari, but as Ferrari, a team that is the most famous, even without signing one of the biggest stars on the grid, that demands from itself to drive for the championship, I don't think it should just be the media hype that decides who will drive for them. And no, I'm still not saying Lewis is a bad driver, I'm just saying he isn't at the same level anymore that he had when he was winning one championship after another.
A thing iI want to let you all know, is that I will deactivate the anonymous questions, because i get many reactions that aren't very friendly or objective/impersonal, and I won't answer such stuff, because I want this to be a friendly discussion about the F1 amongst F1 fans who can also respect the opinions of others and don't feel personally attacked if someone does say something that they don't like to hear about a specific driver or team.
20 notes · View notes
gemsofgreece · 2 days
Text
Some thoughts on the Homeric Age and the Early Archaic Period
Based on my reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey in the original Homeric Greek text and a fairly loyal Modern Greek rendering
I had read these in middle school but, you know, fewer things stick with you when you do them as a chore. I was interested in reading them again, not so much for the already familiar stories, but for what I could take from them and conclude about the Greek society more than 2800 years ago! I must note that it is unclear how accurately the poet(s?) - let’s say Homer - portrays the Homeric Age and events that supposedly took place more than four centuries before his time. The question is, are we truly getting a picture of the Homeric age or at least an archaic Greek society? My opinion is that the epics must have been a reflection of some early Greek era indeed and not be entirely imaginary. Most historians believe Homer does a fairly decent job at preserving cultural and social elements of an age long gone even for him, although it’s undoubtable there is a lot of infiltration with elements of his own times too.
Peace and War
It is interesting that even though the Iliad is a war themed epic and graphic violence and gore are not missed in the Odyssey either, both the characters of the epics (who are famed warriors more often than not) and the poet - narrator acknowledge war as a great evil that causes a lot of pain to people. Even the victors pillaging and taking slaves have total awareness and understanding that a slave or a defeated enemy are suffering a lot. It seems it is a man’s duty to confront that great evil and be decently prepared and trained for it, however it is not a situation that most have a special yearning for. Most men agree that there is nothing like having peace and enjoying your companies and families, however it was a great shame for a man to step back once war broke out. A war or a fight or any argument would be ignited usually by acts of injustice or great offence that should be obligatorily punished immediately, even if the offended would deep inside rather stay at home. As an example, Odysseus murders violently all of Penelope’s suitors and twelve girl slaves who betrayed his wife and slept willingly with them. He does not waver at all, despite the pleas for mercy. When his oldest servant and nanny sees the gruesome scene with all the dead, she rejoices and cheers. Odysseus then scolds her, for “anybody’s death should never be a reason for joy”. So we have this somewhat contradictory stance in a society which proclaims itself peaceful and fair yet it takes too little to outrage and urge at acts of vengeance and violence. Violence and war are seen as measures that must be taken and that one must not recoil from but there is wide acknowledgment that war and death brought to others should not be desired or enjoyed. It was definitely not among cultures that viewed war or conquest as some sort of sacred destiny or pride. But it also did not take much for them to find excuses for a war or a fight.
Religion
Despite misconceptions that Ancient Greeks were always very anthropocentric and put logic and the potency of the human mind above all else, it is certain that at least up to the Archaic period this was not the case. Ancient Greeks of those early eras were very religious and attributed almost everything to their deities. The fate of a person is sealed from the beginning and the gods are well aware of it. Even the achievements or mistakes of great people are viewed as interventions by the gods. Although Odysseus is repeatedly praised for his intelligence and resourcefulness, it is almost always a god (Athena) who enlightens him on how to act or what to say. Misfortune is also entirely attributed to the gods - if a character suffers great misfortune, it is not so much because of their own misjudgment, the elements of nature or ill luck, but because some god is angered with them or has a special liking for their enemy.
Behavioural patterns
The most notable pattern in the behaviour of characters in the epics is that it is temperamental with plenty of mood swings. Granted, we should always keep into account that they are just ancient poems and maybe the care for gradual character development or realistic character consistency was not one of the priorities for ancient poets. If we do however still attempt to draw any conclusions, we observe people who are quick to judge, offend, get angry, praise, admire, get emotional, forgive. Some of these mood swings happen in minutes. Certainly this must not be realistic but it may be a sign the Ancient Greek people were that temperamental, quick to hate and quick to love. Another crucial observation, maybe a trademark trait of the Greek ethnos, it is apparent throughout the epics that the Greeks are people who love to talk a lot, they are argumentative and they enjoy discourse. Characters unfold their thoughts and feelings extensively and they do not shy away from being vulnerable. Furthermore, their speeches are bold and often candid; they can use strong language for the flaws of people they love and they add praises even in speeches against their enemies! In other words, they generally call it what it is - they are upfront about the flaws and the virtues of those they speak to. One last observation, they tend to be suspicious of others. There is an ongoing theme of trying, testing old friends and loved ones even when this is distressing to the other person and even though the events alone prove those people’s love and testing them really is superfluous and just shows a very suspicious, disbelieving nature. Of course, testing your loved ones is a huge recurring theme in international literary work ever since, therefore once again it would be reasonable to consider that even if those tendencies existed, they were exaggerated for the sake of the poems and the prolonged entertainment of the audience.
Objectivity
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of reading the Homeric epics for me is how the author is largely removed from taking sides. Homer does like Odysseus, that is evident, however as a narrator he almost never speaks ill of any character. Any accusations are only made by characters against other characters. The narrator himself acknowledges positive traits in most characters or at the very least remains neutral. Even more interestingly, this expands to an ethnic level. Even though the epics are written by a Greek for the Greeks, there is resolutely no hatred or prejudice against any other culture mentioned. Trojans, Thracians, Aethiopians and many others are all acknowledged for their own virtues each and the narrator does not resent any for fighting against the Greeks. It is clear that at the time, discrimination and hate speech against other nations and cultures had not yet gotten to people’s minds that much. I found it very wonderful and interesting that a war text from 800 BC could master more objectivity and level-headedness than 99% of texts written in the 19th century around the world.
Women
[This part is a little longer so I am putting the rest of the post under a cut]
Classical Greece is notorious for how oppressed its women were, however either things were better for them a few centuries prior or the truth was more nuanced. Of course, we are undoubtedly talking about a deeply patriarchal society in which women were expected to restrict themselves in their own rooms and have little concern besides their kids and weaving. In spite of this, the poems are full of considerations and respect towards numerous women and seem to have them in a type of regard that is rarely mentioned in historians’ documentations. Women are portrayed with diverse personalities and the vast majority are presented as positive role models. In fact, there is only one woman who is mentioned in a downright negative way and that is Clytemnestra, but it’s only her husband who does this as well. Other than her, there is rarely if ever negative talk against other women. Even Helen is never treated badly by anybody; Helen is only ever criticised by herself. When she returns to Sparta, her people, Menelaus and visitors such as Telemachus seem to honour her as if nothing ever happened. Helen joins them in their festivities, is portrayed as more perceptible than Menelaus and always voices her thoughts in the overwhelmingly masculine company. Arete and Nausicaa are also significant female characters and they are more crucial to the safe return of Odysseus than King Alcinous. Penelope is one of the leading characters; her thoughts, feelings and turmoil interest the poet (and apparently the ancient audience) in a large part of the Odyssey, no less than the feelings of Odysseus himself. The input of women is often welcomed and considered - it is not taken into account usually when it gets in the way of plans that have to do with war and fighting or when the position of a male might be challenged in front of others. For example, Telemachus evidently loves and respects his mother but he eventually feels ashamed that he is becoming a grown man, the future king, that cannot get rid of his mother’s suitors and he often scolds her when she takes decisions regarding these matters in his and the suitors’ presence. Other than that, mothers in general are viewed as sacred and respectable. Odysseus, a mature manly warrior, is seen yearning for his mother’s embrace.
In Nausicaa we see that perhaps women could also go outdoors and have fun when accompanied by their maids. Nausicaa and her maids wash the clothes close to the shore and in the meantime they entertain themselves by playing with a ball until the sunset, with the permission of her parents.
The pain and turmoil of slave girls is seen and understood. Odysseus kills twelve of his fifty slave women because they betrayed him. The rest who remained loyal to the family rush to welcome him back - Odysseus hugs them all and weeps. This scene is beautiful because there is nothing resolutely sexual implied - it is clear that his relationship to them was more genuine than that of a master and his servants, they were also his protégées. He cared enough to weep for meeting again his female servants - this shows that even an unfree working girl could be impactful enough to a powerful man’s life without this necessarily involving sex. The slaves he killed received a shameful death but even so Telemachus explains to them why such a death is chosen for them as if he tries to excuse it. Meanwhile, there is not any hint of apologism when it comes to the gruesome amputation and murder of the male traitor. It seems it was viewed as more dubious for a man to kill a woman, whereas a man killing a man was viewed as a punishment or as a heroic act, depending on the context.
Goddesses are portrayed totally unapologetic; they clearly have the freedom to do morally questionable deeds without being judged by the mortals’ standards.
One very interesting detail is that when men converse with women, which happens a LOT in the Odyssey and not just between married couples, men often refer to gods as husbands of goddesses. For example, when Odysseus talks to Nausicaa or Penelope, he addresses Zeus as “Hera’s Zeus”. This is clearly a subtle attempt at honouring the woman the man is talking to - it stresses that even a god belongs to a goddess, even the father of all gods, is Hera’s man. This is not to question Zeus’ leadership among the gods or portray males as possessions of females but it is a way to respect the woman opposite them by acknowledging their own influence and importance. “Even Zeus is Hera’s Zeus, therefore I have the highest regard for you, my lady.” I believe this was the spirit and I thought it was a wonderfully subtle way to show regard for a woman.
Love, lust and sex
What I found the most interesting regarding romantic relationships is the impression I got that emotional connection and respect seemed to be more telling of someone’s devotion than physical intimacy. It seems that married men could get away with having sex with slave girls (not free women) as long as they did not sleep in the same bed or maintain a deeper emotional relationship with them. For Helen, it seems it was worse that she followed Paris away rather than that her being with him included having sex together. There is also totally the concept of casual sex of which goddesses seem to have a good understanding. Mortal women on the other hand can openly voice their sexual desire and take the initiative to have and enjoy sex but only when it is with their husband, but they are sometimes depicted to have willingly casual relationships (Odysseus’ working girls with the suitors), which is however a choice that is fatally punished by the master once he returns. However, it wasn’t so much the act of casual sex they got executed for but more so that it was with the suitors who were exploiting Odysseus’ riches and loved ones. There is a distinction in the Odyssey between women who eagerly entered sexual relationships with the suitors and others who were raped by them. I don’t claim it was entirely clear but to my understanding, the latter welcome Odysseus back and are not punished. Another interesting fact is that although Penelope is admired for her loyalty to Odysseus, she was not in fact socially obligated to grieve him for so long. Telemachus himself declares he is happy his mother is so loyal to her husband, however he would also be okay with her marrying somebody once he became of age. (It would also be convenient as the suitors would finally leave him alone.) Both Telemachus and the suitors repeatedly leave it to Penelope herself to pick whomever she fancies best, with the optional advice of her father. There is a small part that suggests some people would still gossip negatively if she took a new husband, however it was clearly totally acceptable for her to do so. Just like Penelope, Nausicaa, a maiden, is always concerned about what people will think, however when alone with Odysseus or her maids, she makes her attraction to him discreetly clear. I also found the men’s approach to love and sex very interesting. Men are depicted equally as capable of sexual desire, abstinence, indifference or even being sexually coerced. By the standards of the era, Odysseus is really as loyal to Penelope as she is to him, given that his infidelity was with two goddesses, one with a notorious love for potions and another who clearly kept him her prisoner.
When he returns to Ithaca, he keeps up a stone-faced fake identity for too long but when he reveals himself, he gradually becomes frustrated with Penelope’s cold and doubtful reception. We are told that apparently Odysseus was very invested in his marriage with Penelope, given the strenuous work he willingly did with his own hands to build and decorate their bedroom. When the couple reunites, Athena literally has to prolong the night for them to just weep together, cuddle, tell their sufferings (and have sex) enough. It just gives us a picture of a mutually respectful marriage where the wife is just as invaluable to the husband. Men are also depicted to have shame for their nudity, which is something that might seem surprising given the classical obsession with the body. Odysseus feels it is shameful, vulnerable and inappropriate to be seen, touched or washed by female servants, especially when he is significantly older than them. He also feels embarrassed for his looks under the female eyes. Lastly, in the Homeric epics women are ultimately the object of men’s desire. There is actually no mention of homosexual attraction. The only questionable moment, on which the entirety of the later speculations were founded, is when Achilles has a dream of deceased Patroclus and he express his wish to die and be buried together. Other than that, having sexual desire is exclusively expressed for women or, interestingly, by women in these two epics.
Other types of love such as friendships and familial relationships are full of vulnerability and expression as well. Men, fathers, sons, friends hug, cry and narrate their misfortunes openly and vulnerably. Grown men are still recipients of beautiful kind words as Thetis does with Achilles and as Penelope and even the swineherd Eumaeus, who operates as a paternal figure, do with Telemachus (both call him “sweet light”). (As a sidenote, it is clearly viewed as the right thing for a noble person to be close, caring and accessible to his servants and slaves.) Arete and Alcinous also treasure their daughter Nausicaa.
The most moving part of all, Odyssey might be the first text noting the literally undying love, devotion and wisdom of dogs. While Odysseus at the moment is in disguise and can’t show much affection or then grieve his dog Argos, it is clear that Homer wouldn’t bother adding that part if the Greek people hadn’t already started forming loving bonds with pets.
Stools
Boy they loved stools.
Conclusion
If there is any accuracy in Homer’s epics, then the late Homeric / early Archaic society was a society that generally tried to be peaceful and always measured the profit and cost from a war expedition but the equilibrium was really fragile and very often disturbed. People were religious, opinionated, argumentative, talkative and temperamental but they also valued loyalty, honour, hospitality, patience and bravery. They loved dearly and were fearlessly expressive, however they were also quick to anger and suspicion. It was a very patriarchal society, however women had their own way of being respected and reckoned. Sexual desire was seen as natural and expected in both sexes, however there were limitations to how upfront or open it could be in its expression. These limitations affected both women and men, but to different degrees or ways.
BONUS!
An examination of similarities and differences between this society and later / current stages of Greek society:
Some obvious similarities are that Greeks have indeed always been temperamental with considerable mood swings and a tendency for suspicion. There are hints of cryptical behaviour in the epics though and I would say that later and current Greeks are also notable for this (contrary to popular belief). Modern Greeks are less capable of objectivity or seeing the virtues of an enemy. The double, often contradictory approach to sex, where promiscuity and modesty collide, are an eternal trait of the Greek people. While it might be on the lower end of the western world spectrum on the matter, it is needless to say the woman’s status in the society has improved hugely. However, there is this common pattern that historically Greek women were often able to be much more influential or assertive than the laws or the “norms” expected them to be. Greeks have always loved their families fiercely. The next might come as a surprise but I firmly believe modern Christian Greeks are much less GENUINELY religious than Homeric and Archaic pagan Greeks were. Later Greeks (probably starting since late classical period and ever since) do not attribute nowhere near as much of their achievements and failures to a deity. The Greek approach to Christianity however is similar in the sense that there is an expectation of an immediate godly payback involved just like ancient people expected the favour of the gods with their sacrifices or appropriate behaviour. As time passed, Greeks became distinctly less and less interested in war and fights, despite always remaining argumentative. Modern Greece is a genuinely peaceful society that avoids confrontation but has some basic standards of good defensive preparation in case of bad need, while the ancient society was violating its own boundaries of peace very often and much more readily.
18 notes · View notes
myjetpack · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
My cartoon for this week’s Guardian Books.
4K notes · View notes
incorrectbatfam · 4 months
Note
Question: do you think it's better for Cass to be verbal or nonverbal?
Secret third option where she has one line a day like Ferb and it's an absolute zinger
2K notes · View notes
very-straight-blog · 2 days
Text
The situation with Aegon is an example of how the screenwriters, not understanding what they're doing, harm themselves. My love for him is based mainly on the book and I can say with confidence that Aegon is the most ruined character in the series. I've already written a lot about this, so I won't repeat myself, everyone who reads me and other pro-green blogs knows what I'm talking about. Eight minutes of screen time, r*pe, an attempt to leave the family and escape. However, since the beginning of the war, Aegon has become the second key figure in the conflict. He's the king, he confronts Rhaenyra. This is HIS story as well. That's why it's so important to reveal him. You can also recall that after Rhaenyra's death, Aegon actually becomes the main character. Judging by the trailer for the second season, the writers started trying to fix the situation by changing Aegon's character, giving Tom more screen time, but I'm really not sure that this will help. The main part of the audience is people who haven't read the book and all they remember after the first season is that Aegon is an irresponsible and lazy drunk who r*ped a servant girl. I don't know what the creators should show so that people would at least start to sympathize with him.
169 notes · View notes
I wanted to add that I wasn’t necessarily defending Joe as a “muse”…more so just saying that he was obviously important to Taylor both emotionally and growing as a person. I think that has been reflected in her music thus far. I hope that makes sense. But it is interesting that we spent YEARS defending Tay against the people who say “All she does is write breakup songs about her exes!!!”……but now some people are acting like that’s really all she writes about…
Oh yes I'm aware - I just mean *waves arm* generally speaking there's this very urgent urge (indeed) to protect someone from something that hasn't even happened (yet or possibly ever). And yes it's almost like the call is coming from inside the house sometimes.
But again I'd argue that even Taylor's most scorching breakup songs again are mostly from her POV (as they should be?!). And their intent is not to lay bare all the things that someone else has done wrong to her to create a publicly held rap sheet of someone's crimes but to untangle all the complicated things that she felt about situations. If we want to talk epic iconic breakup songs "All Too Well" at its core is a song about reminding HERSELF that what she experienced and the emotions she felt was real.
And to build on that, if anything (and I believe she talked about this in her Fallon interview for Midnights?) she's admitted herself that she explores the idea of shame and guilt a lot in her lyrics and the complicit role she's played (and sometimes unfairly to her own self) in the circumstances she finds herself in.
73 notes · View notes
mcromwell · 29 days
Text
AI shit is artificially inflated to appear like "the future", "the way of the future", "new standard" etc.
Remember a couple years ago who was saying the same type of shit?
Crypto bros.
Remember all the companies that adopted NFTs and crypto payment options from the hype? Compare that to the state of crypto now.
Brands are easily swayed by smooth talking tech nerds looking to make a lot of money fast and then split when the tech ends up not performing as well as advertised or too expensive to sustain long term. Or when the public gets bored. They got bored of NFTs, it wouldn't surprise me if AI generated shlock becomes solely synonymous with bootlegs and the companies already producing cheap crap.
This article goes into it a bit more, here's a quote.
"Would it surprise you to learn that OpenAI is also not making any money, and relies on investments from venture capital to stay in the black? Because they are not making any money and rely on investments to stay in black. Part of this is because of the technology itself: according to Microsoft, which has invested $13 billion into OpenAI, they lose money each time a user makes a request using their AI models."
Stay strong, y'all. I'm not saying this tech isn't harmful (it is super harmful) but the situation is not hopeless.
2K notes · View notes
ghostslimu · 1 year
Text
you will never be a bad person for not reblogging a post on tumblr, please remember that
10K notes · View notes
vyorei · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
Full article here:
1K notes · View notes