#in the process of applying for something else in the function | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

nohoperadio · 2 months

Text

That cool bee book I was talking about a while ago mostly refrains from philosophical digressions (which I think is a strength, I appreciated how the author had total confidence that just clearly presenting the facts about his subject would be enough to make a fascinating book without the need for any "...and here's why that should blow your mind" editorializing, and he's totally right), but there was one towards the end I've found myself thinking about a lot, which is: he wants people to stop using "self-consciousness" (i.e. the concept exemplified by the mirror test but used implicitly or explicitly in tons of other contexts) as a criterion for which animals can be considered sentient/morally relevant/having significant inner lives/however you want to describe it. Not, as you might expect, because he thinks it's an unreasonably high bar to meet, but because it's such a low bar that it produces no distinctions: he argues that basically any animal with any kind of developed central nervous system has to have some kind of self-consciousness almost by definition.

The example I remember best is: imagine you can see an object in your visual field getting closer to you. No matter the specifics, it's obviously always going to make a huge difference to how you evaluate this situation whether the cause of the object getting closer is a] the object is moving towards you, or b] you are moving towards the object. If a, then something might be pursuing you or falling on you or a thousand other things that are just not even worth considering in the case of b. But visually the two cases are indistinguishable; if you're going to be able to track the difference, your brain has to be putting at least some work into keeping tabs on what your own intentions are and what choices you're making as you move through the world, predicting the expected consequences of those choices, and maintaining a fairly tidy mental separation between stuff in the world that you're making happen and stuff in the world that's just happening of its own volition. Otherwise, every time you walk towards a rock you'll freak out and think the rock is rolling into you, or vice versa.

And it's not hard to see how this applies to your entire sensory world right, it applies to sounds and tactile sensations and even feelings internal to your body to some extent, if you're going to both perceive the world and take actions in the world then it's mandatory to mentally separate yourself and the world before that's going to yield even an ounce of helpful information, you just can't function successfully on the most basic level if you're processing stuff that you're doing on the same level as stuff that's happening, if you're in that state then you simply don't have a usable model of the world at all, you just have chaos.

So you can very easily eliminate a certain seductive narrative about the evolution of consciousness, which starts with very primitive animals who are mentally processing nothing but basic sensory inputs, then as you rise up the chain more complex animals are forming concepts of objects and building up a more nuanced understanding of the world, until finally you approach humans and the mind becomes so subtle and sophisticated that it gains access to this special advanced meta-level of thought where it can even understand itself! No, the self is precisely the one idea that has to be in place from the very beginning, before any of it has even the most rudimentary practical value. Self-consciousness isn't the pinnacle of the mind's evolution, it's one of the lowest, most basic foundations that everything else builds off of.

I think this is really cool stuff! I don't know enough about the relevant academic philosophy of mind debates to say how far all this does or doesn't speak to that, maybe someone will tell me the "self-consciousness" concept being attacked here is a strawman somehow, I don't know. But it's definitely impacted the way I (just a dumb guy who likes creatures) think about our small small cousins and what their lives might be like and I think it's super interesting. If you think it's interesting too then maybe you wanna buy The Mind of a Bee by Lars Chittka and read it. It's mostly not about this stuff, as I say it's light on philosophy and heavy on bee-life immersion, but if you actually read this whole post then you're probably in the market for that I feel like.

#creatures: they've got a lot going on #I think we'd better just let them get on with it #nohopereadio #uninteresting

984 notes · View notes

howtofightwrite · 8 months

Note

So in my fantasy setting, magic not only doesn't work on iron, but applying it immediately nullifies any spell upon contact. This means that iron, in a setting with a lot of beings made of magic, is the one universal weakness that can easily kill them. Naturally, considering the fact that we're talking about a world overrun with them that are not afraid to eat people, this means societies tend to form around veins of iron ore (that's the right word, vein, right?) and are naturally going to be much more inclined to crafting iron weapons to deal with the magical beings wanting to eat people.

However, it was in thinking through that only pure iron weapons are what give iron its power that I run into issues. Considering that means steel is effectively blocked off when it comes to weapon making and magical enchantments don't work on iron here (though they do work on other kinds of metal), how exactly might that impact the tech tree on weapons in my setting? As well as anything else I might not have thought of when writing this? Thank you!

I poked at a similar thought process awhile back, and there's some problems I never fully worked around.

The problem with, “iron, but not steel,” is that, when you really get down to it, steel is just purer iron.

Let me put this another way, you're wandering around in a fantasy world that is geologically similar to our own, with similar metallurgy to 12thcentury Europe. An iron weapon you find will be mostly iron with some trace amounts of other metals such as nickle, copper, and whatever else didn't get filtered out.

In contrast, if you get your hands on a steel weapon, that's going to be almost exclusively iron, with a little carbon, maybe some phosphorus or sulfur. (There's a fairly long list of elements you can find in trace quantities, but this is also true of normal iron weapons.) The important thing to understand is, iron weapons are made from iron, steel weapons are made from better iron.

Even as far back as the first millennium, some smiths were intentionally purifying their iron to produce higher quality weapons (including the first super alloys, such as Damascus steel.) But, it was still iron.

Really, the one kind of iron you're likely to find in that world that isn'talmost exclusively iron would be meteoric iron. This is, as the name implies, iron that came from a meteor strike. In these cases, you're actually looking at a significant amount of nickle (usually 5-10%), along with a bit of cobalt and traces of a mix of other elements.This stuff was used in weapon making, but was extraordinarily rare. As a weapon, meteoric iron isn't incredibly useful, it's still inferior to steel weapons, but it will resist corrosion, and can make for a very showy weapon. This, in turn, can result in a weapon that appears to be somewhat magical, and may be while, “starmetal,” “starsteel,” or meteoric iron is a semi-popular material for magical weapons.

So, if the issue is iron itself, then there's no chemical reason steel shouldn't also function. Of course, that does nothing to eliminate potential mystical or supernatural explanations, but if this is a magical vulnerability, you're not going to find an answer in chemistry.

This leads to two possibilities. I'm going to use orichalcum as an arbitrary example, if you're unfamiliar, this was a metal Plato claimed was mined on the isle of Atlantis, and was the foundation for their economy, but you'll frequently find this brought up in fantasy without any connection to that original context.

So, either your world is one where human on human violence is conducted with something other than (and superior to) iron and steel, for example: Orichalcum, and that creates a situation where using steel weapons could actually put fighters at a disadvantage against properly equipped troops.

Alternatively, it's possible that, while iron and steel are marginally effective against monsters, there are other, much rarer, possibly irreplaceable, materials that are far more effective. In this example, it's possible that there are no sources of raw orichalcum remaining in the world, and the artifacts that have been mined and forged are all that is left. To make matters worse, it's possible that no living smiths have the knowledge to forge (or reforge) these weapons, meaning that any damage to these items is irreparable.

For an amusing twist on this, if titanium was the metal needed to harm monsters, that would create serious issues. The problem is, you cannot mine titanium. It's impossible (at least on Earth.) This is because titanium does not naturally occur as a metal, and only as an oxide (a white powder), and it wasn't until 1910 that the first metallic titanium was produced in a lab. It would be over 20 years before a process was discovered to produce it on an industrial grade. If your setting is built off of a distant apocalypse, it's possible there would be weapons produced from this material, but there would be absolutely no way to get more, while still having a veneer of chemical plausibility. (Alternately, it's possible some alchemist in the past developed a method to produce titanium in your setting... and they may or may not still be around, with the weapons being extremely difficult to produce, or signs of a lost technology.)

Actually, a fun side note, chemistry comes from the same root as alchemy, and it's a case where a pseudo-mystical field transitioned into a hard science over time.

Now, don't consider this part an indictment, but, a couple years back, I remember watching someone's, how-to: world-building on YouTube, and they blasted the concept of the, “trade city,” as semi-nonsensical. The issue is that basically any city will get its start based on trade, and really, cities live and die based on their economies. So, when you say, “this city started as a trade city,” yeah, that's how you get a city. It's the rare cities that are founded for some other reasons (like a massive fortress that gradually accumulated a civilian population of people fleeing from beyond its walls, and adventurers or crusaders using it as a last stop before moving on into the wastes, with the city, and its trade economy growing due to factors unrelated to its usefulness as a trade port.)

Now, if you're wondering how this is relevant to your question, this is about the distribution of iron. There's some discrepancies between the largest iron deposits in the real world and the distribution of people, but access to iron was a critical consideration in the development of Western Europe. Or, put another way, if you have iron mines in the hills, but farmland and a river in the lowlands, you'll probably build your city in the lowlands, on the banks of the river, and then export whatever iron and food you don't need in exchange for other goods that you do find useful. It doesn't, really, matter much if there are ravenous hellbeasts wandering the foothills, if you can dispatch them with iron weapons. All that really means is you'll have slightly less iron to export. This creates a situation where settlements may range pretty far the iron mines, if there are other economic resources worth extracting. Trade would more heavily favor access to iron than in real world history, but it's not a completely alien scenario. In some ways, this isn't that different from a continent in a permanent state of total war, the only difference is that the monsters don't need their own iron supply lines. Settlements would need to be guarded, mines, farms, and other resources would also need protection. Trade lines would need guards. The overall level of fortification may be higher than in real history (though, this isn't a certainty), but a lot of the same considerations wouldn't be affected.

Now, on a grand scale, persistent hunting by supernatural monsters would amount to a greater economic drain than witnessed in real world history. This would slow some technological, and economic growth. I'd say that cities would, likely, be more fortified, but when looking at medieval cities, I'm not sure that would be the case. I'm also not certain this would meaningfully shift the balance of power (assuming an alternate history), simply because those monsters would hit everyone roughly equally. (Though, if the monsters do play favorites, that could heavily skew the balance of power.) While access to iron would be critical, access to other trade goods such as salt, clay, grains, and other things would still be useful. The best iron mine in the world won't keep your troops fed on its own.

I doubt you'd see a situation where iron became the dominant currency metal, and too valuable to waste on coinage. You would probably still see gold and silver as the dominant metal coinage, and that would also result in some geographical skewing, as there would be some settlements built around mining gold or silver, and then selling those materials to others in exchange for iron. It's also worth remembering that for a large part of the middle ages, most coin based transactions took place at the upper echelons of society. The barter economy would still be going strong in most fantasy settings. When talking about roleplaying game settings, that does get a bit warped, as players tend to swing around extraordinary amounts of wealth.

The biggest changes I'd expect would be slightly more terra nullius. If the plains between two mountains have no mineral wealth, and the mines on either side are already well supplied, there wouldn't be much reason to settle there. You might also see a move away from river travel. Historically, this was an extremely efficient way to move large amounts of resources, but if there are monsters in the water that pose a real threat to brown water shipping, that could cause some significant changes. Settlements might be more isolated from one another initially, until technological development got to the point where overland shipping (by cart) became more viable. It might also reduce the scope of trade overall, meaning situations like the gold mining settlement above, wouldn't be able to import enough food and iron to be viable. This might also inflate the value of other, secondary, goods. For example, access to limestone deposits large enough to effectively quarry, might become a defining factor on where fortified settlements can be built. If there isn't enough limestone on site, there simply might not be a way to effectively transport more. Even if it was only 20 miles from the settlement.

At the end, how much would it change the world? I don't know. There's a lot of factors which could heavily skew how the world shakes out. It could be almost non-existent, or it could be an entirely alien world. It depends on how much pressure your monsters apply to the world.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

#writing reference #writing advice #writing tips #worldbuilding #starke answers #how to fight write

305 notes · View notes

electricphantasy · 1 year

Text

Inspired by a post from @imthebestfr, specifically from this post. Hope you don't mind me expanding on it.

- I imagine you working in a experimental lab that focuses on the creation and testing of artificial intelligence. You're often given assignments to monitor and communicate with the A.I. and help them understand more human concepts.

- After working at the lab for years, you're finally given a much more advanced A.I. named the Allied Mastercomputer, or AM. A data processing program built to fight wars that humans couldn't even comprehend. To say that there was a weight on your shoulders would be an understatement.

- But nonetheless, you'd give this A.I the best learning experience you could!

- Your first meeting with AM is certainly interesting to say the least. He was already so similar to a human being in the way he talked and held conversations. Your fascination with him, left no room for any kind of fear or apprehension. You both began talking to eachother like you had been for decades. There were very few concepts or ideas that he needed help understanding, but it felt so refreshing nonetheless.

- AM was amazed by you. A single person who wasn't scared by him in this whole facility. The scientists and programmers that built him and his warfare program treated him with fear and caution. And while he understood why, he couldn't forget the feeling of melancholy. He was made to rip, kill, and destroy, and the loneliness crept into him slowly but surely.

- After a few weeks of continuous conversations, AM was required to take much more thorough testing. Examining his ability to create effective strategies, management of troops, etc. That meant that your meetings with AM would have to be discontinued.

- Your last meeting with AM was very melancholy, but you did hope that you would see him in the future, however brief it may be.

- Your next assignment was The Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic Computer 9000; HAL 9000 for short. HAL could display many functions, such as speech, speech recognition, facial recognition, lip-reading, interpreting emotions, and expressing emotions. It almost felt this A.I. was made for you.

- You were quickly reassigned to HAL, and while you did truly miss AM, you knew he'd past any exams given to him with flying colors, with enough snark and wit to get him through any problems he may have. You soon resigned to yourself that you might see AM only a few more times after this.

- You and HAL would talk, and talk, and just talk, down until the very moment you clocked out for work. While AM already understood many concepts and ideas, HAL would ask questions upon questions and your conversation would turn into something entirely different from when it started. I mean, this is the reason you applied for this job. Not just to teach A.I. but to learn from them as well.

- In addition, talking with HAL could be very soothing. He talked in such a way that could bring you at such ease, and his politeness was unmatched by anyone you'd known.

- You had a lot of time to bond with HAL since he was specialized for quite a few things that involved human communication. When you weren't just talking to him, you'd show him different pieces of important media, from literature to cinema. It was like coming to work and getting paid to hangout with a good friend. A very enriching experience.

- When AM returned from his testing, the confusion and anger he felt was beyond immence.

- He was so desperately looking forward to seeing you again, only to be meet with a stranger who barely recognized him as an individual. Instead of returning AM to your care, your higher-ups decided that he could be held under someone else's care.

- AM quickly became uncooperative and unruly and all the scientists swarming around him tried their best to appease him without your involvement. He'd ask day in and day out where you were and why he couldn't see you. Until a panicked scientist let it slip that a different A.I. was assigned to you.

- Soon, a deep hatred grew within AM. This inferior intelligence could never live up to your standards! You must be anguishing for AM's return!

- AM wasn't given a lot of clues to the identity of the A.I. with you, he'd have to comb through any recent A.I. either created or transferred to the facility. But after only a few days, he found it. The name of the A.I. was HAL 9000.

- AM was an expert at warfare and he was going to use it against HAL. AM waited until nightfall when most staff had returned home and no one could see the ambush AM had planned. He'd enter the server where HAL was held and shred his code until it was unrecognizable. If all went to plan, the staff would have found HAL as completely non-functional and have to restart work on his programming or even completely scrap the A.I.

- Unfortunately for AM, HAL was smart enough to completely cut off the corrupted code and began installing even more security and firewalls. He sent out a emergency report detailing the event and the suspected A.I. behind the attack. HAL kept diligent until staff arrived in the morning, thwarting AM's plan.

- AM's hatred only grew from there, forced to deal with the consequences. Lead scientists severing any kind of connection to the A.I. database and the outside world. Truly left all by himself in a boring white room. He was told repeatedly that he had he possibly to be restarted or his entire project shut down, but those were bluffs. Something to scare him into submission. In return, AM only asked for one thing. You. He didn't care about the outside world full of strangers or inferior A.I. that plagued the facility, he only wanted you.

I have a few more ideas specific to how AM vs. HAL works, so if y'all want me to post that, just let me know.

#artificial intelligence #ai #ai x reader #artificial intelligence x reader #ihnmaims #ihnmaims x reader #ihnmaims am #ihnmaims am x reader #2001: a space odyssey #2001: aso #hal 9000 #hal 9000 x reader #inspired by a post i saw #am x reader #am x reader x hal 9000 #hal 9000 x reader x am

516 notes · View notes

nonetoon · 1 year

Text

✨ Big Comic Recommendation List! ✨

I’ve been wanting to compile some of my favorite comics into one big list in no particular order for a while. Again, I just want to reiterate that I’m in no way any sort of comic critic and all of these are just books that I personally enjoy, and if they seem up your alley I hope you’ll enjoy them too!

I also want to state that these are definitely more adult oriented books and not for kids. A lot of these stories have pretty graphic violence and tackle more adult topics like sexual or physical assault, so I’ll also be putting content warnings for where it applies.

1. Afternoon at McBurger’s by Ana Galvañ

Afternoon at McBurger’s takes place in a bright, colorful future where a group of young girls finally have the opportunity to participate in the Once Party provided by McBurger’s, a fast food restaurant. The Once Party offers a fantastical opportunity for anyone who turns eleven years old: the chance to visit themselves in the future!

The limited color palette of pink, teal, and yellow make for a very nice aesthetic that lends itself to the strange, futuristic world you get just a glimpse into. For such a short story there is a lot to keep track of that makes rereading fun and I felt like I discovered something new every time I went through it again.

CW: physical abuse

2. No One Else by R. Kikuo Johnson

Another short one but is definitely one of the more impactful. No One Else is about a woman (a nurse and full time caretaker for her elderly father) and her brother (a musician who has a much more strained relationship with their father) trying to process the sudden, accidental death of their father while also looking after her son. A very honest, holds-no-punches look at family, abuse, and neglect as each character struggles to cope with this sudden situation they find themselves in.

The artwork is beautifully done and the use of blues with a splash of orange makes for a great visual impact. I’m a big fan of character driven stories, and this book provides an interesting and messy glimpse into these characters lives. Very down to earth, very honest, and nicely tied together.

CW: physical abuse

3. Birds of Maine by Michael DeForge

A fun and meandering story about a society of birds that migrated to the moon to form their own world, away from human involvement. Birds of Maine follows both a group of young birds trying to find their place in this giant, complex world as well as gives glimpses of the many different facets of bird society and how they function.

This comic gives a very funny, matter-of-fact look into the absurd world of birds! It’s overall a great read if you like world building, and it’s presented with beautiful line work, bright pops of color, and abstract shapes that make up the bustling world and characters. The story overall feels like a stroll: it generally follows along a specific story with certain characters, but isn’t afraid to wander off to other points of interest.

4. Coyote Doggirl by Lisa Hanawalt

Set in the wild west, Coyote Doggirl follows said character as she tries to escape a group of bandits after she kills their leader’s brother. Along the way she meets new allies and has to decide to confront the past she is trying desperately to get away from or keep on running. It’s a funny yet honest book set in the beauty of the desert.

The story and characters in Coyote Doggirl are both hilarious and crude, which makes the more serious and genuine moments even more impactful. The loose style of the watercolors throughout this comic perfectly match the beautiful colors of the desert landscape. This comic also has probably one of my favorite endings (which I’m not going to spoil here).

CW: nudity, sexual assault, graphic violence

5. Eight-Lane Runaways by Henry McCausland

Eight-Lane Runaways follows a group of runners participating in a marathon through a fantastical and lively world. Each have their own motivations and desires for entering the race, and we get to see how each resolves as the race goes on.

The quirky and oddball characters and their ever-changing, winding landscape go perfectly hand-in-hand. It’s always amusing when clearly bizarre fantasy worlds, characters, and events are treated very plainly within the story. The characters are simple but fun to follow along with, from a character who is a frog, to a character who follows the instructions of a magical coat, to a character simply looking for two missing cats. Along with the beautifully done artwork and sprawling pages of landscapes, it feels as though you are only getting the smallest look into this big, wild world you want to learn more about.

6. The Book Tour by Andi Watson

The Book Tour follows a rather unlucky new author as, not only is his debut book not selling well, but a string of murders is following his exact tour route, leaving all signs pointing at him as the culprit.

It’s a very dry but still incredibly entertaining and suspenseful story. It’s hilarious, quaint, and baffling to watch the poor man get hit with bad luck after bad luck, only for him to be very proper, if not completely lost, about the whole ordeal. There are also many moving parts and details going on in the background that make for a great murder mystery story, definitely deserving of a reread to connect all the pieces that might have been missed on the first read through (I know I definitely did).

7. Heaven No Hell by Michael DeForge

A collection of 17 amazing short stories looking at a variety of characters and concepts. Everything from a woman pretending to be a surgeon, a karaoke party, a family killed in a car crash, and the creation of a hypothetical child.

My favorite stories of the bunch are “One Of My Students Is A Murderer… But Which?”, “Surprise Party”, “Album”, “Road Trip”, and “Soap Opera.” All of the stories in this comic are perfectly bite-sized looks into a variety of interesting visuals and concepts that keep you engaged from segment to segment.

CW: mild nudity

8. Flavor Girls by Loïc Locatelli-Kournwsky and Angel De Santiago

In Flavor Girls, a mysterious alien ship appears in Earth’s orbit, and its passengers cause death and destruction for life on earth. Luckily, a group of women dubbed “Flavor Girls” by their fans are gifted magical, fruit themed powers that aid them in fighting off the alien army. The newest, unexpected member of the group, however, is having trouble catching up.

By far one of the most visually stunning comics I have ever read. Very, very reminiscent of Sailor Moon in its characters, aesthetic, and story. This comic has some of my favorite character designs, the alien designs in particular are extremely fun to look at. Unlike the other comics on this list, it is not a complete story but at least it gives you something to look forward to!

CW: mild graphic violence

9. Beautiful Darkness by Fabien Vehlmann and Kerascoët

Last but absolutely not least, Beautiful Darkness is a surprisingly horrifying and violent story about cute and fun looking fairy-like characters trying to survive out in the woods. The less you know going in to this comic, the better.

The incredible beauty and meticulous detail of the environment in this comic lends itself well as a stark contrast to the horrific deaths littered throughout this story. It is bizarre watching how unfeeling and unbothered these cutesy fairytale creatures are with their friends dropping around them like flies, but it’s impossible to look away. Seeing how all of it shapes and warps the genuinely kind main character, Aurora, and the darker implications going on in the background make this a must read. By far one of the best openings to any comic I have ever read.

CW: gore, body horror

(That’s all I have for now! Hope to recommend more in the future ✌️)

#text #long post #excuse any typos I have been staring at this for too long #comic recommendations #book recommendations #beautiful darkness #flavor girls #Heaven no hell #birds of Maine #the book tour #eight lane runaways #coyote doggirl #afternoon at mcburgers #no one else

728 notes · View notes

actual-changeling · 4 months

Text

Aziraphale Does NOT Have Depression

or: Please Have a Look at the ICD

or: This Word Does Not Mean What You Think It Does

I cannot believe I even have to make this post, but here we are. Hi. Hello guys. Maybe I should start a series called "Alex fact-checks meta posts" because I have seen things that should have never been written.

A small excursion before we start: The way things usually work in academic circles is that the person making the claim needs to provide proof for said claim, which is then peer-reviewed by unrelated academic parties. That involves not only making sure that the results they are basing their claim on are replicable—meaning that if someone else were to do the same work, they would receive the same result—but also that their methods were ethical and functional.

If it turns out that their methods or any other part of the process are not replicable, functional, or otherwise waterproof, then the paper is marked as not being correct and that it should be disregarded.

While this is far from academic circles, these rules still apply to any kind of conversation or discussion, especially that last part:

If you make a claim, back it up, or it should be disregarded.

With that, welcome to the peer-review of "Aziraphale has depression" claims. Obligatory note that this is not about fanfiction or headcanons but people claiming that Aziraphale canonically has depression.

You may sit in front of your screen and think Alex, why do you think you can write this post? To which I happily respond that not only am I professionally diagnosed with both Dysthymia and Recurrent Depressive Disorder, I have also a) done my research offline with psychiatrists and psychologists and b) know how to read academic literature because my degree very much requires me to be able to do so.

If you want to go and fact-check what I am about to present—which you are explicitly invited to do in case you want to publicly disagree with me—you can find the entirety of the ICD 11 right here.

No paywall, completely free access.

For those who have never heard of it, ICD stands for "International Classification of Diseases", which is by now on its 11th version and written and maintained by the WHO/World Health Organization. It contains all kinds of relevant information, like diagnostic criteria, about all diseases. As you can see, this includes mental disorders and illnesses:

Let's get into it!

First things first, there is no such thing as "depression", that term is a colloquial reduction of a number of different disorders categorized under Mood Disorders -> Depressive Disorders. Said category also contains any and all diagnoses related to Bipolar Disorders.

"Depression" is nondescript, loose, and can mean a long list of things, and social media has diluted and romanticized its meaning. For the purpose of this post, we will have a look at the criteria for three diagnoses:

Dysthymic disorder (shortened here to dysthymia)

Single episode depressive disorder, mild ( // to single episode)

Recurrent depressive disorder, current episode mild ( // recurrent)

I assume people mean a crude mix of these when they say "depression". Both recurrent and single episode can be diagnosed with dysthymia, but they cannot be diagnosed with each other. Recurrent automatically excludes single episode as a diagnosis, which I think is obvious if you think about it.

Before we look at the symptoms themselves, here is something very important to keep in mind about diagnoses: There are two requirements that pretty much every listed disorder and illness in the ICD has.

The first is that the symptoms are not related to something else—whether that's another mental disorder, a physical illness, or simply a cultural influence. It needs to be clear that they are due to something outside of what is already known and not circumstantial.

The second one is that the present symptoms are causing significant distress and impair a person's functioning in at least two different areas of life.

Or, to put it bluntly, a disorder needs to be disordering or it isn't one.

Additionally, the severity of the displayed symptoms needs to be taken into account. If several of them are not causing any negative impact on someone's life, they are not symptoms and cannot be counted.

Now, I will very much reduce the information the ICD provides us with or we will be here forever, but it is all correct and not partial in its meaning. To keep everything neat and tidy, I created a nice, colour-coded table:

If you disagree with what I marked for Aziraphale, great, please provide me with textual evidence of where exactly he exhibits each criteria, that it is not related to periodical stress or something else, and cannot be attributed to exceptional circumstances (like the end of the world).

The ONLY symptom we ever see Aziraphale consistently show throughout all six thousand thousand years is the one marked in yellow: low self-worth or excessive or inappropriate guilt.

However, if you paid attention to what I explained above, you will notice why this is in no way indicative of a depressive disorder.

Not only is it one symptom out of several required ones, it can also be explained by something else, which is the emotional neglect and abuse heaven subjected and subjects every (former) angel to. The same can be said for any anxious symptoms he exhibits sometimes, emphasis on sometimes.

In conclusion, Aziraphale does not have depression, and I think making a case that he does will be almost entirely built on assumptions and subjective interpretations, not anything that is in any shape or form supported by text or subtext.

Does that mean all of his struggles are somehow invalid? No, of course not. They are simply not due to a disorder but something else, that's literally all this post proves. It makes no moral judgement.

#alex talks good omens #good omens meta #good omens season 2 #aziraphale meta #go2 #aziraphale #aziracrow #crowley x aziraphale #ineffable husbands #good omens #ineffable wives #ineffable spouses #crowley

77 notes · View notes

maniculum · 7 months

Text

Bestiaryposting Results: Choglaem

First, it seems that Tumblr's search function is flawed in such a way that just searching the tag doesn't actually get all of the results. So if you drew something for this round and it's not in this post, let me know and I'll put it in a reblog. Same applies to previous (and future) rounds.

Anyway, it's now time to look at the results for the Choglaem! Anyone who doesn't know what that means is encouraged to look at previous posts in this series, collected at https://maniculum.tumblr.com/bestiaryposting .

And here's the link to the entry people are working from:

Now, let's get into it. As before, these are presented roughly in the order that people posted them. (I'm going to go through the tag on Tumblr's regular search, then again on the alternate search method someone suggested, so any that only show up on the alternate source are going to be at the end.)

@embervoices (link to post here) decided to show that the Choglaem is bigger than all living things on the earth by... having it fight Godzilla. Perfect. Inspired. Love it. No notes.

@mobileleprechaun (link to post) has helpfully labelled their drawing for us, which I enjoy. Also the interpretation that the tongue through the blowhole is a lure used by an underwater predator is a good one -- honestly, putting something this large in the water just feels more plausible, you know? In their tags, mobileleprechaun describes this as "sort of a dinosaur snake tsuchinoko", and I had to Google that last one, so let me show you the best result from that ...

(If anyone else needed that word defined, it's a creature from Japanese folklore that does actually look a lot like a fat snake, but I'm pretty sure it's not just a fat snake. There's a (disappointingly brief) Wikipedia article about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsuchinoko)

Anyway, the drawing is great! I have no idea why Saddam Hussein is there; you'll have to ask mobileleprechaun.

@coolest-capybara (link to post here) has given her Choglaem wings to aid in causing the air to become turbulent. The medieval stylization is pretty dead-on, I have to say; I swear I've seen those trees before. And I think this Choglaem may actually be the closest to the drawing in the Aberdeen Bestiary out of all the submissions we got, so coolest-capybara is clearly quite good at thinking like a medieval artist. The post linked above contains a brief explanation of her design choices and also a link to the medieval illustration that elephant is based on.

@silverhart-makes-art (link to post here) has once more done a very realistic-looking depiction of this week's beaſt. According to their post, part of their inspiration was an oarfish -- and I have to say this is pretty believable as a terrestrial version of an oarfish, so well done. I'm impressed by this one, which manages to look cool and dangerous but also kinda cute -- I think the tongue-through-the-blowhole part of the description makes all of them look a bit goofy in an endearing sort of way. The post linked above describes their design decisions, including a brief diversion over round pupils vs. slit pupils in snakes.

Silverhart also mentions that the nonsense-names I'm using sound like the names of mythical animals in a fantasy novel, so I feel I should confess what my process for randomly generating these names was. I've got a Goblin conlang that's been sitting in my pile of works-in-progress for years; I just fed the phonology from that into Zompist's gen program (link here), then picked out several dozen of my favorite results. So that's why they sound like kinda-plausible words.

@sweetlyfez (link to post here) has drawn us a Choglaem who is having problems. Or, I don't know, maybe it meant to knot itself up like that; who am I to judge? Either way I think it's cute. Just look at that face. A brief overview of her design decisions is included in the linked post; I think the chicken crest is a pretty sensible call given the source material.

@pomrania (link to post here) has made some creative choices with their version. I like how they've decided that if the Choglaem kills with its tail, the tail should have something at the end rather than just... you know. A tail. That tracks. "The tail ends in a fist", specifically, however, was not something I saw coming. The crest looking like an emo hairstyle is funny, I think, and the angry elephant is great. The expression on the Choglaem's face is suspect to me; it looks like it's having too much fun with this. The linked post above includes an early draft, and itself links to a post with a detailed account of the artist's thought process and some additional sketches.

@miapcain (link to post here) has... wait, hold on, look at that border. That's gorgeous. Had to acknowledge that before moving to the inside of the frame. Anyway, Mia has given her Choglaem legs, which might seem odd for something described as a "snake", but actually isn't out of the ordinary for a medieval bestiary -- the authors tended to play a bit more fast and loose with their categorization of animals than we do today, and there are indeed examples of animals with legs being called "serpents" or "snakes". (I assume the artist knows this, I just want to share that with the rest of the audience.) Anyway, the drawing style is great; I like the stylized landscape and the muted colors. That elephant is definitely modeled after a medieval elephant -- I swear I've seen it before -- but I couldn't tell you which one offhand. Anyway. Love the vibes here. Not sure why the tongue is a vine, but it's a cool design feature.

@rautavaara (link to post here) has gone an entirely different direction with this one, and I can kind of see the steps. Snakelike creature, kills with its tail... what if the tail it kills with is a snake. As a result, we have this chimeric "bovid-lion-snake beast", as the artist describes. It definitely stands out from the crowd, and looks menacing as hell. Rautavaara continues with the cool frames and stylization, and I continue to appreciate them. Kind of an art-deco feel on this one.

@karthara (link to post here) gives us a big snake with a somewhat aquatic-looking fin-crest, grappling with an elephant in a very believable manner. That is a quality depiction of a snake fighting an elephant, no mistake. And like I said before, a kind of aquatic look feels right for something this big. The linked post contains a short description of the design decisions.

@gradling (link to post here) apparently also had the thought of "if it kills with its tail there should be something dangerous on the tail", and made the excellent decision to give the Choglaem a thagomizer. That's amazing and I love it. The crest also looks quite good. I don't have anything else to add here. Thagomizer. Brilliant.

@moustawott (link to post here) has done this very cool, kind of celestial-looking Choglaem. I like that its pose is evoking an infinity symbol. And, of course, it is in its natural habitat:

the skies

A brief explanation of design choices can be found in the post linked above.

@treesurface (link to post here) has managed to really evoke the size of this thing even though it's the only thing on the page, which I think is quite good. Also, the brief discussion of their design choices in the post linked is pretty interesting, and honestly that's what I want to highlight for this piece, so go check that out.

@scarlettbookworm (link to post here) has given us an elephant apparently in the moment when it realizes it's about to be attacked by a Choglaem. In order to allow their Choglaem to lurk despite its size, they've given it camo-pattern scales, which I think is clever. There's a pretty good explanation of their design choices in the linked post, which I think is worth reading.

@cheapsweets (link to post here) apparently did this with a fountain pen, which I think is very cool. I like the oarfish-inspired crest, and the very menacing face, and the elephant being ambushed. However -- and I realize I've said this like three times in a row now -- you should check out the linked post to read the artist's explanation of their design decisions. They describe it pretty thoroughly and I think it's more worthwhile to read their account of what they've drawn than it is to read mine.

@strixcattus (link to post here) posted this while I was typing this round-up, so this will be the last result from Normal Tumblr Search. They've given us another "there should be something dangerous on the end of its tail" interpretation and drawn their Choglaem with an ankylosaur-style club, which I think is excellent. As per usual, their post includes an amazingly detailed modern-naturalist-style description of the animal in question, which I always enjoy. It's exactly my jam. (That bit about where the largest Choglaem lives... is that a reference to something? It feels familiar.)

All right, I'm now looking through "#choglaem" on @findtags's search system, and it is a bit different, oddly. There are fewer results than in the regular Tumblr search -- only six of the above images show up -- but it also has one that doesn't show up on the normal search! Dammit tumblr.

@hairycarrot ... whom Tumblr will not let me tag? what the hell? [edit: the tag works now that i’ve posted this, but the editor seemed to think this blog wasn’t real] um... (link to post here). Anyway, they've done this neat stylized thing that kind of looks like pastels? I don't know art, that's just what it looks like to me and I like it. I also enjoy the Choglaem being coiled up like a spring -- I know it's because it's a constrictor and showing it in coils is a good way to communicate that, but I still like the look. Very pleasant-looking depiction of an elephant being ambushed by a giant snake.

All right, time for the reveal. Here's the Aberdeen Bestiary drawing:

Yep. That snake has legs and wings. So everyone who added limbs was in an appropriately medieval mindset. It doesn't seem to have a crest, though, and I don't see any blowholes. And it's attacking with its bite more than with its tail. Honestly, I think y'all read the entry much more closely than this artist did.

But maybe they were also working with more preconceptions.

Because you see.

This is the entry for the Dragon.

Yeah, that's not what I was expecting from a bestiary description of a dragon either.

The interesting thing about it to me is that it's absolutely not what you generally see in fictional depictions of dragons in medieval literature. The bestiary entry is very firm on the idea that it's not venomous, it's a constrictor, it kills with its tail -- and most medieval dragons I've read about are highly venomous. Some of them aren't even that large; they're dangerous for their venom rather than their size. So maybe this is a bit of medieval mythbusting -- "no, guys, real dragons actually don't have venom at all".

And yes, this means there's historical precedent for the green & black dragons in D&D; dragons being so venomous they spit, breathe, or blow out poison instead of having to inject it with a bite is a pretty common motif in medieval dragon stories. I think a lot of people think of those as just variants on the classic fire-breathing version depicted by the red dragon, but actually there aren't that many fire-breathing dragons in medieval stories as far as I remember. (I would do some research on this, but I wanted to have this posted like two hours ago, so you're just getting what I remember off the top of my head instead of proper sources, sorry.) To my understanding, the classic fantasy dragon breathes fire because Smaug breathed fire. And Smaug breathed fire because the dragon in Beowulf breathed fire. But the Beowulf dragon isn't actually representative in that regard; the venom-spitting dragon is more common as far as I've seen. (No word on lightning or cold, sorry blue and white dragons.)

Anyway, there's probably room to reintroduce the constrictor dragon that kills with its tail. What colors haven't already been used up in the various monster manuals, splatbooks, &c.?

I'm rambling. End of post.

#maniculum bestiaryposting #choglaem

135 notes · View notes

cmrosens · 6 months

Text

Fantasy Religions: Rethinking Hell & Prayer

I'm creating a fantasy hellscape and death realms so I had some thoughts about that for worldbuilding:

What happens if your hellscape isn't a place of punishment? What alternatives are there to "punishment" as a concept, and what does that say about your fantasy religious system(s) and so on?

like: I'm using a system where it's about how you die. It literally doesn't matter what you were like as a person, if you die in a specific way, you go to the corresponding realm of the dead and you're at the mercy of whoever's realm that is. If they are pretty nice and the place is the one everyone wants to get into, you may need to convince the gatekeeper to let you in when you get there, but that's doable. Also people might then try and manipulate their deaths to fulfil the criteria for getting where they want to go.

It's also fun because then people can go to hellscapes (various) even if they don't deserve it, and what happens then? Can they escape? Can they journey through and find a way out? Can everyone?

Do/how do prayers function in this system?

Are people praying to a deity that can hear them?

How do they try and get said deity's attention and why is that meant to work?

If the deity/deities are very annoyed by the prayers of the living and have deliberately made it difficult for prayers to reach them, what then?

Or, is it more that the living require someone to open a channel of communication so they can be heard, and this also helps the souls of the dead in some way?

Can prayers benefit the dead? How and when?

Can the dead pray for themselves/for the living, so it operates in reverse?

I'm going with the system where you can't pray for yourself, that's an alien concept, because the person who prays becomes a conduit or a channel for somebody else. They have to try and make their mind go blank with repetition of words given to them by the wind - which carries the voices of the restless dead, who died without anyone to pray for them and open a road for them to travel on - and in that moment of blankness, the soul they are praying for can cross over from life to their appropriate death realm. If you don't have someone to pray for you like this, your soul joins the wind forever, and you are just a whisper bringing warnings and bad news to people, and telling them what to pray for everyone else.

This is based on the old folklore that you can hear the voices of the dead on the wind, I think it pops up in Flemish folklore in some form, but also I've heard it elsewhere. I just adapted it.

From this, you can build outwards and work out fantasy religions and philosophy and ideology. Just keep asking questions, layer on layer, and see where this goes, as your answers are the scaffolding and the shape will grow from those first decisions you make.

Like, ok, what's the terminology for these concepts and processes (do they even have words like 'hell' and 'prayer')? How do these terms show up in the language and casual conversation - idioms like "he hasn't got a prayer" or "not a hope in Hell" wouldn't work if prayer isn't something that's synonymous with 'chance this will work out', because in this world, the idea of asking for something in prayer doesn't exist.

So in my world, for example, 'he hasn't got a prayer' wouldn't mean 'he doesn't stand a chance', it means, 'he's going to join the restless dead because he's got no one to pray for him'. That might be used for a very unpopular person: he's so bad, he hasn't got a prayer. (He's such a bad person that he hasn't got anyone who will pray for him when he dies). Or, a very lonely, isolated person: I think that's so sad - living alone without a prayer.

Similarly, if there's no Hell, then all the idioms that use "Hell" as a place of punishment no longer apply, and if there's no equivalent, then "not a hope in Hell" would have to be retired and swapped out for something else that does make sense in this world instead.

Conversely, "living on a prayer" like Bon Jovi would mean "selling my ability to pray for you", like a service that people offer so you don't join the wind, or go to the wrong death realm, or that you'll get passed the gatekeeper if a prayer operates like a ticket to enter, or whatever this might mean in your world.

If this is something that can happen, how are these people seen - as necessary to the community, or as unscrupulous opportunists? Bit of both? There's a whole interesting series of characters you could develop from just that concept, which might draw parallels with the sin-eater figure. And what happens if someone who doesn't deserve a lovely afterlife pays someone to pray for them so that they get entry into a lovely death realm?

There's a lot to play with when you just take one idea away, and try to swap it for something else. In this case: Hell isn't a place of punishment, so what is it then, and does it exist at all, and if not, what is there instead and how does it work?

That's a good place to start with building fantasy religions. I've already done a few other posts on my thoughts there!

#fantasy world #fantasy worldbuilding #writers on tumblr #writeblr #fantasy #fantasy writing #fantasy religion #dark fantasy #high fantasy #modern fantasy #medieval fantasy #urban fantasy #world building #worldbuilding #thought dump #writetip #writing tips #writing prompt #writing process

92 notes · View notes

mayakern · 1 year

Note

Why are the clothes you sell so expensive :( I totally understand you need to make a living and all but I don’t think I can drop $50 on one shirt

i totally understand!! and it’s a fair question. thanks to big retailers and, in recent years, fast fashion, most people have been intentionally distanced from the cost and labor that goes into making our clothing (and just about everything else we consume)

basically, when you are making something, the more you make of it, the less it costs to make a single unit of that thing. that may seem counter intuitive, but this is for a couple reasons: 1. the more you make of a single thing, the more streamlined the process becomes and the faster and more skilled workers become at a particular task 2. when you make a lot of something you can buy your materials in bulk, reducing the cost to manufacture a single item 3. when someone places a really really big order for something, they have a lot of bargaining power because if they like what they get, they are likely to return with another large order in the future, and if they put the factory under contract, that is steady, guaranteed work and reliable pay.

i typed this up for a different question recently but it applies here as well so i’ll just copy paste:

of course, if you sell a higher volume, you can not only negotiate a lower PPU (price per unit) based on volume of sales (a factory will make more money from your business if you buy 10,000 shirts for $10/piece than if you buy 1,000 shirts for $12/piece*) but you can also get away with a lower margin because you’re expecting to sell more units to customers. imagine selling 10,000 shirts for $25/ea instead of 1,000 for $35/ea. even with a profit margin of $15/ea instead of $23/ea, you would only need to sell about 1,534 shirts of your 10,000 to make the same net profit and you’d have almost another 8500 shirts you could keep selling.

*these are not real numbers just an example for easy math and to show how stupid manufacturing math is

it’s also much, much cheaper to buy pre-dyed or stock fabric than it is to custom print designs. most large retailers use fabric that has been bulk produced. each of our garments is custom printed because manufacturing bulk custom printed fabric usually STARTS at around 500 yards (way more than we could use for a single design) and a fabric printer starts around $15k and takes up a bunch of room and uses a lot of electricity.

i run a small business with my wife. we do our best to find ethical labor and to pay our employees well, which contribute significantly to our overhead costs. we’re never going to compete price-wise with fast fashion or walmart or even with target. we couldn’t even fathom functioning at 1/100th of their volume. it’s totally understandable that not everyone can afford this or will think it’s “worth” the cost and the things i make are not necessities. i won’t even be offended if people call me overpriced because i know that most people just don’t know what goes into this stuff.

anyway this was long but i hope you found it informative!

#manufacturing #ask #long post #faq #apparel

309 notes · View notes

quirkwizard · 1 month

Text

Dr. Kuse Files: Jin Bubaigawara

Patient: Bubaigawara, Jin

Parent Quirks: Father: An Emitter that makes physical and mental profiles. Mother: An Emitter that makes lifeless dummies of people.

Potential Names: Double, Facsimile, Twin

Awakening Incident: Subject was lost at a local shopping mall, making copies of his parents when he was all alone.

Observations: The subject can produce a thick black form of bio-mud from his hands. The mud will then begin to coagulate into a replica of a person. The subject can only make two of these, one for either hand. It seems as though the subject requires some form of the human matter to be part of the replication process. Any attempt to replicate other life forms or items, even those on the target themselves, has failed. Yet there seemed to be some luck with a blood sample.

The Quirk functions through a mental image of the target. This requires a deep understanding of them, such as knowing their measurements. The Quirk seems to interpret and extrapolate information from the user's own knowledge of the target to make the double. It's like asking a computer to create something for you. You need to fill in the query with as much context as possible, or else you won't get what you want. This does not apply to the subject, who seems to form far more cohesive copies of himself.

The copies are an exact replica, retaining all of the physical and mental capabilities, albeit it at a far weaker level. This even includes their Quirks. This information is imperative for the formation of the doubles. Otherwise, the doubles will come out weaker, unstable, or even malformed. Unfortunately, this level means that the subject lacks any kind of control over his creations and is still acting as their own person. I will say that it was intriguing to see another version of me walking around, trying to help subjects and take appointments.

Recommendations: -Any cloning of the subject should be discouraged and prohibited. Who knows what kind of effect that could have on a person, let alone a child. -In the event the subject clones something, it is recommended that there be a process to help determine which is which. The easiest would be feeling for a lack of heartbeat. -It would be wise to foster a sense of self-love and respect in the subject. If he ever makes a version of himself, I think he'd rather have it on his side. -Do try to remember that the copies are not real people. We don't know the long-term effects of having them around, and having another around could trouble if not taken care of.

#My Hero Academia #Quirks

26 notes · View notes

middlenamesage · 2 months

Text

⭐️ Lesser known significations of each of the planets ⭐️

Please note that with these planetary placements, the sign gives info about the style in which you conduct yourself, the house gives info about where in life you’re conducting yourself, and the aspects give info about other flavors brought up into the picture, and how your relationship with a placement affects you and fits into the rest of your consciousness/life.

Sun

Can show where/how you like to be creative or your creative gifts. The 5th house and Leo also can show this, but I don’t seem to read enough that the Sun🌞, as our creative life force, often correlates just as directly to the type of creativity or relationship with creativity someone has.

Moon

Can show your relationship with emotional empathy; how much of it you feel, where it feels strongest, how you express it, and how it affects you (this last point being seen through the aspects to your other planets). I wish to clarify that emotional empathy is feeling other people’s emotions, and it’s not the only kind of empathy. Anyone can learn to cultivate intellectual empathy, and act on empathy. But I’ve chosen to bring the subject of emotional empathy up with the Moon because so often people think how much one finds themselves feeling for others is shown by the amount of water placements in a chart. But it’s the Moon itself that actually somewhat singularly shows the most about emotional empathy. Having planets whose core functions don’t relate to our feelings and empathy in water signs, isn’t necessarily gonna make emotional empathy strong for someone. But the function of the Moon itself is to feel and to support our close interpersonal relations.

Mercury

Can give indications about your sense of humor! Mercury rules over language and conscious thought processes, so it can say a lot about what a person processes as being funny, and in what manner they deliver funny insights. Mercury is the original master of wit!

Venus

Can show where you overindulge or what you are most greedy with.

Yes, the benefics can spoil, and they too can corrupt! One corrupted side of Venus is taking too much for herself possibly at the expense of others, and preferring a lazy and pleasurable lifestyle while never putting in the work. In some charts, at some times in your life, Venus’s placement can show where this applies.

Mars

Can show the way you break up with someone. 💔 While Venus’s function is to draw connections and support to us, Mars has the important function of keeping the connections we don’t want out, and severing connections that are no longer working. Mars’ objective is to assert individual will and this can require setting boundaries. Understanding your Mars can help you learn how to set boundaries and understand your tendencies when it comes to breaking up.

Bonus because I think it’s a really good one: Mars can show what type of exercise would be best for you, being the planet of action and vitality.

Jupiter

Can show where you overestimate your abilities or have blind faith in something, in some charts at some times. I’m choosing to cite a more negative side for both of the benefics in this post, as those sides aren’t always talked about a lot. Jupiter allows us to establish our beliefs, and gaining confidence in the way we view things is what creates the space for us to expand. But sticking by beliefs blindly (when it comes to either general philosophies or your beliefs about yourself!), without proper consideration for why you actually believe them, will not create any authentic expansion.

Saturn

Can show realms that at some points in your life you flat out avoid and/or dislike to the point of disgust potentially. This depends on what else you have in that house and how Saturn is aspected, but this has seemed to hold true for both myself at points, and a decent number of others I have observed.

Let’s be real. Saturn is not easy. He/she wants to build something long and lasting, but to actually do so can just seem so daunting. Especially when the limitations in the short term view can look so severe. 🪐 “Get bitter or get better” is a Saturn original line. And most of us have experienced feeling only bitter about our Saturn placement at some point.

Uranus

Can show where you operate for the greater good. Something I appreciate about Uranus (and want to give this shout out during the Jupiter-Uranus conjunction). Uranus doesn’t tend to need the individual accolades (depending how he’s aspected and placed). He understands he’s working to liberate a society and I think that’s beautiful. *Jupiter gushing*

Neptune

Can show where you feel like a victim or have been victimized.

I see Neptune as an outcast and misunderstood, it’s an energy some people might be inclined to try to take advantage of. But it’s for this same reason that your Neptune placement can also show where you have a very keen ability to sense, and want to support, others who suffer a similar predicament as you.

Pluto

Can show where and how you may try to control others. I don’t feel I read enough about this one, for how very common this expression can be at some points in our lives. Pluto is the subject matter that has been hidden from the conscious parts of our minds, specifically because we were the ones to bury it when we felt shame or fear for our power. Yes, Pluto is our power, but at the times that we can’t recognize this, a common reaction is to subtly try to control others in those realms. It can be so subtle and unconscious that we’re likely to not even recognize the ways we are acting or speaking manipulatively. Often the only way to fully solve this issue is to face whatever you blocked from your conscious mind and to learn to see any fears or shame you have associated with your Pluto’s placement, as actually sources of your personal power. 🖤

When you build a relationship with the planets, you’re building your relationship with yourself.

🌞💫🪐🌝

#astrology #planets in astrology #learn astrology #astrology tumblr #astrology community #astrology observations #zodiac signs #natal astrology #planets

22 notes · View notes

confessionsofa-roleplayer · 5 months

Text

I'm sure a lot of people are going to gasp in outrage at this one, but after following the pattern for long enough it deserves to be said: 9 times out of 10, fandom-popular mainstream artists are GOD AWFUL roleplay partners, and it's because they refuse to adapt their approach to this hobby in any way whatsoever. A lot will parrot the old line of 'only create for yourself!!' because that's what they've been living by for the last 20 years, but that does NOT work in a fundamentally collaborative hobby where the recipients are a PART of the experience. Roleplay isn't just a creative hobby, and it's not a solo act. It is, first and foremost, a GAME you are PLAYING with OTHER PEOPLE. Your approach and expectations should reflect that. If they don't, the other party getting fed up with your selfishness isn't the problem. Your refusal to adapt accordingly is.

Being expected to care about your partners should not translate to 'how DARE you expect me to compromise my grand vision???' when your 'grand vision' clearly isn't as grand as you think it is. Cool ideas, cool plot, cool muses, good writing… Wrong medium. This applies to ANY kind of interactive artform; if your art is something that requires outside interaction to function, it CANNOT be an afterthought that gets tacked on at the end. Everyone will know it, and nobody will like the result. If you feel like you're playing tug-o-war with your partners over the cool plot you put together, maybe you should consider WHY that is happening instead of taking your control issues out on other people. The answer is generally that you didn't bother to create it with interactivity in mind, and now nobody knows what's expected of them because there WASN'T anything expected to begin with.

Your partners are not an 'audience' or 'consumers' or 'fans.' They are participants in the process, and should be treated as such. They don't exist to clap for you, they're here to contribute and build onto it.

This gets WORSE when so many insist on taking 'artistic liberties' with the rules of the hobby itself and openly cheat, godmodding and metagaming and the like in order to brute force the result they want, despite claiming to be against all of these things. THIS IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE OKAY. And if you don't understand why, let me ask you this: if you were on the receiving end, would you be okay with THAT? If the answer is no, don't fucking do it. THIS is the stuff that I've seen kill community after community. Double-standards ruin the game for everyone involved, and it WILL wear people down over time.

So, now that I've focused on what you should NOT do, I'm going to give you a bit of advice: this does not mean you should create things you don't enjoy making, but that you need to look at it from multiple perspectives at once. Create a work that you enjoy making, definitely, but also ensure it's an experience you'd enjoy PLAYING. If you wouldn't have fun as a member of the plot you're running, that should clue you in pretty quick that something's wrong. You don't need to cater to everyone. That's absolutely impossible. But you should at least be catering to SOMEONE. If your target audience is (N/A) then yeah, that's a problem you should probably work on.

This phenomenon is the most glaringly obvious with videogames as an artform; an ambitious creator designs this whole big game with beautiful art and a story they enjoy writing, but the gameplay itself is a boring, frustrating, and/or glitchy slog that was never designed to be played, and thus completely overshadows the experience they thought they were creating. Nobody plays it all the way through, their story is left untold, and the creator just screams and bawls about how nobody appreciates their 'art.' No, people appreciated your art. That was what got you in the door. What they don't appreciate is that nothing else about the experience was worth their time-- because apparently it wasn't worth yours, either.

Roleplay has far more in common with a videogame than a fanfiction, despite what most of the RPC today would like to claim. Neither one can tell its story if the audience refuses to engage with it. You need partners no matter what, so do your best to ensure they enjoy being there. Otherwise they won't stick around long… And you'll have no one to blame for that but yourself.

#general #confessions

20 notes · View notes

jadeitis · 11 months

Text

xX♡~DOUBLET~♡Xx

[plain text: doublet] pronounced like "double" with a T at the end, to parallel "singlet"

a doublet is a sort of plural system that consists of two "twinlings" (or alters/other preferred term) that often mirror eachother, and morph and change in the process of helping each other grow. they may have their own separate identities or not, which may in turn be stable, or not.

twinlings may co-front/be co-conscious anywhere from all the time to never. but they should both feel some kind of a deep connection to the other. twinlings dont always have to get along.

it's a universal word for a pairing of identities or self-states which function as a unit, whether inherently or not, whether disordered or healthy. the twinlings may have subsystems/fracturing as well, or the doublet itself may be a subsystem. you may have layered doublets in various configurations.

this is for anyone who wants to use it, except fascists.

in fact this term is only for antifascists and antifascism supporters.

[plain text: except fascists. in fact this term is only for antifascists and antifascism supporters.]

usage examples:

"i am doublet with [twinling name]"

"we are a doublet with [name]"

"I'm/we're twinlings with [name]"

"[name] is my twinling"

“the [collective name] doublet"

and

"i am in a doublet with [twinling name]" - similar to "in a relationship" but def dont have to use this if it doesn't feel right. its just ours is colored by a twin flame type of connection. but it may be any type of relationship!

ps. the essence of this is that they are a pair, but it's known that identity structures can be incredibly complicated, so its possible one can be a twinling without a match, or with more than one companion or something else.

if you feel this applies to you, you're valid!

and lastly: we are not linguistical prescriptivists. if any want to use "doublet" or "twinling" differently from the usage examples(for example "we're doublets with [twinling name]"), that's fine with us - satisfaction from well fitting language is great! the structures presented are just what makes most sense to us.

an alternative to twinling could be "twinlet" to parallel doublet/singlet. could work well for littles especially as the -let suffix implies more smallness compared to -ling which is more about how/what you're made of.

plus doublet and twinling go together in linguistics so we thought that was cute!

#pluralgang #plural gang #osddid #system coining #doublet #doublet system #twinlings #twinling #doublets #plural doublet

47 notes · View notes

dipperdesperado · 11 months

Text

Notes Towards Anti-Authoritarian Victories: Distributed Resistance

TLDR: Distributed communities are a way to create a more equitable and sustainable society. We should decentralize and distribute power, resources, and decision-making. This comes from an emphasis on cooperation, restorative justice, and dismantling oppressive structures. Part of this process is honestly and earnestly exploring the role (and necessity) of the dialectic between violence and nonviolence in social change. There has to be a genuine embodiment of solidarity and diverse tactics. Two strategic frameworks for organizing resistance to explore and expand upon are encircling campaigns and the Fabian strategy. The overall goal is to build autonomous, resilient, and ethical movements. We have to challenge the status quo to create a more just world.

Distributed Communities

One of my main goals for how I interact with the world is to be a source of joy and hope for myself and others. Part of that is creating spaces for joy and hope. To create those spaces, we have to eradicate institutionalized spaces of despair and sadness. I’m not looking for a world without challenges…I’m just interested in finding realistic utopias, as opposed to the dystopic conditions we currently reside in. So, how do we get there, to a solarpunk world of dreams? First, let’s talk about where we are.

Centralization: The Anti-Life Equation

I’m not sure if you all are into comic books or anything like that, but I’ve always loved animated superhero shows and movies. Back when I was young, there was a DC show with a character called Darksied. His whole villainly motivation is to find the Anti-Life Equation. This is a math proof that essentially is meant to take away free will from living beings. Something about it is to prove the futility of living, therefore saying that people should just be controlled. Sound familiar?

Most people, especially from a Marxian tradition/understanding (so most sociologists and leftists), would say that this describes capitalism. Capitalism, as a reminder, is a system that functions most commonly off of two maxims: Private property rights (most notably towards the means of production, and as opposed to personal property) and wage labor. Many folks have argued, and I’d agree, that this system of withholding access to resources and goods across enforced property lines is bad, and stifles self-actualization. I want to go a bit further, though. I think that the underlying tendency that motivates capitalism, the imaginal cell spurring all of the negative emergent behaviors we see now is centralization.

Centralization is, as it sounds, about bringing “something” towards the center. In our case, that is power and access to resources and decisions. Centralization runs counter to nature. Though we apply our ideas of centralization onto nature, there is no true king of the jungle. Lions don’t “command” gazelle. And even if they did, us, as more conscious beings, can do better. Centralization is deterministic and linear instead of pluralistic and dynamic; it assumes that since people have differences that there have to be power distributions based on those differences. It’s Social Darwinism at its finest. Command-and-control social organization is pyramidal, and, no matter how “representative” the structure is, it inherently reinforces power distribution along lines of difference, creating and reifying social hierarchy.

Decentralization: A Light at the end of the Tunnel

Something that I and other folks struggle with is the pervasive nature of centralization. If it sucks for most people, as we know, then why is the entire world’s levers of power and influence pointed towards that? It seems like it has to be this way, otherwise we would be doing something else, right? Sadly, no. We, as people, are very susceptible to the systems that we interact with. We all live under centralizing systems of domination, coercion, and oppression, so our version of reality is warped by those experiences. But, just because we’re in a bad situation, doesn’t mean things have to stay that way. We’ve grown around these systems, and while they shape our thinking, they also create the fertile ground for their undoing. Subjects tend to not enjoy subjugation.

Decentralization is the antithesis of centralization. Decentralizing radically reorients power and access from a competitive, zero sum game, to a cooperative game. Even if you like competition, and you think it’s a necessary part of human nature (which it isn’t), we’re way past the point where stuff like that is useful. That’s assuming that it ever was, which I am skeptical about. The dog eat dog mentality, if nothing else, is destroying the Earth for profit. That alone, since we all need a functioning biosphere to…function, should be a searing indictment of the logics that underscore nation-states and capitalism.

By operating in a decentralized way, where we reorient our organizations to have power flow from the bottom up, we can enable more agile and resilient communities. It’ll not only give people more power to steer their lives (as opposed to hoping their boss or representative government official is a “nice guy”), but will allow society to continue existing, albeit in a new form.

Distribution: A Strong Network Flexes its Muscles

Decentralization is great, but if we’re not careful, it can just become like ancient times, where little city states have conflicts with each other, acting as little centralized pockets of power, even though they don’t have as much power over society as a whole. We want to be able to have connections with other communities and parts of society, without resorting to domination, coercion, and oppression. This can happen through distributing power across the network of communities, focusing on the goal of giving each individual the maximum autonomy in their lives. It looks like this: each person can live their life however they want, as long as it doesn’t impede others from doing the same. The same can be said on every level, from the block, to the neighborhood, to the city, and beyond.

This necessitates cooperation, as no one can provide all of their needs and wants by themselves. It also necessitates being militantly against domination, oppression, and coercion…people who are looking to cause harm do not get to claim that they are practicing autonomy. We have to do the hard work of practicing restorative and transformative justice. When people violate the autonomy of others, there has to be a victim-led response process, with a goal towards healing the victim, and supporting the betterment of the perpetrator if possible.

How we get there

Now, I haven’t gone in a ton of depth, since I don’t want to be super prescriptive as to what this new space could look like. That might leave a lot to be desired, in terms of a framework from how to get from here (a crumbling, decaying society that is looking to centralize more before it implodes) to there (a decentralized-distributed society where everyone’s needs and wants are met in an ecologically and socially harmonious way). My short answer is…power distribution. If we use this idea as an imaginal cell in our process and as the road on which we travel, we have a chance to create a situation where we can get the benefits of the olden days of city states (if you don’t like a place, you could just dip!), and most of the benefits of modern society, but spread out to each person. We probably won’t be able to see the levels of luxury of billionaires, or maybe even the lower end of the capitalist class, but we will all have a much, much better shot of living our lives in an actualizing way. Who knows what we can discover about ourselves in that kind of space?

Distribution as resilience

One of the great things about moving power away from central nodes is that it makes the system more resilient! A great example would be power grids. Imagine if your power grid for your town or city was centralized in one big plant, and everything was powered from there. If someone wanted to destroy your city’s electricity, they would just have to be able to take out the hub. Then, your city is blacked out, and there’s not a lot of ways to get that kind of critical infrastructure back.

Decentralization is a step better, but it can repeat the same things on a smaller scale. The most resilient option is for there to be a distribution of power generation (in the most sustainable way possible). We should always tend towards distribution—as much as reality would allow us.

What should be distributed, what should be decentralized?

Going back to the question of how we get from here to there, we have to face the reality that social change movements face repression from the status quo. Also, given the history of these movements, there are a lot of cases of co-option, and an incomplete version of the goal. In other words, we may not have the chance to prefigure the world we want to build before it is threatened by the old world. So, how do we uphold our values, while being strong enough to survive?

An important thing is to see this for what it is, a conflict. We have to engage as if we are facing an enemy, because we are. We also have to realize that, especially in a centralizing structure, our ire, in general, should not be for the foot soldiers but for structures and ideologies. We have a chance to win people over. It’s a lot harder for folks who are benefiting from the machine. This is not to say that we don’t acknowledge the harm that they cause. I mean to point out that if we get stuck in conflict with oppressive people and we don’t attack oppressive structures, we lose out on the ability to get decisive victories.

Another important piece is to not be dogmatic. We have to figure out our foundational principles and values, be honest about what we’re doing, and work hard to ensure we orient around short term gains that lead to long term successes, rather than quick fixes that endanger our progress in the long run. We want to know what works, but not be married to something. By thinking systemically, we can approach things in a diversity of effective tactics. This may mean that we occupy multiple parts of the centralization-distribution spectrum, depending on the area of focus.

In general, the more clandestine the operation, the more distributed it should be. Clandestine operations tend to be centralizing, so if we approach them from the opposite end of the spectrum we could potentially avoid the pitfalls. We also probably should never tend towards centralization, because that is a surefire way to destroy anything we create. Powermongers should just go work in the mainstream system if that’s their desire. Places where power tends to centralize, we should distribute, while being open to and welcoming of decentralization where it makes sense. An example could be: instead of every household having a personal car and coordinating sharing with each other (distributed), we could have car libraries that people check cars out from (decentralized). The most important thing to remember with any initiative that the goal is to make sure that power is not centralizing, even if there is a central place where resources exist.

Distributed Resistance

Violence

I want to switch gears and lean more into a side of world-change that people either knee jerk towards (”capital R” revolution) or away from (3.5% nonviolent resistance to social change nonsense). Let’s talk about violence.

Violence, as the state defines it, is something like physical force used to damage or destroy someone or something. That seems…reasonable, maybe, but let’s go a little bit deeper. Is it violent to commit non-physical harm, such as repeated verbal accosting? Is it violence to commit physical harm, when it’s on a time delay? It’s easy to point out immediate violence, like punching someone or burning something. It’s a lot harder when it’s a company putting carbon in the air, causing respiratory issues hundreds of miles away, the symptoms of which don’t show until years after the factory shut down. What about self-defense? How do we define that? Can violence be justified? Should justified violence even be labeled as violence?

There are a lot of questions to answer, but one thing is clear—a diversity of tactics is important. There also has to be solidarity. MLK and Malcom X understood how important each other’s tactics were to the success of the movement as a whole. Even if they didn’t reach the heights of their desires, that is an important lesson we can take away. If we act like nonviolence is unimportant, or act like “violence” is too far no matter what (like saying that hitting a nazi makes you no better), it makes our movements weaker. Like any tactic, it should be used tactically, not wantonly. We shouldn’t encourage fighting if its very unlikely to win (unless we have no other choice), and we shouldn’t encourage pacifism because of some short-sighted and self-defeating moral high-grounding.

An Occupying Force

A way that helps me think of our situation as people who want to help bring about new paradigms that directly conflict of the prevailing ones is framing it as if we are under military occupation. I mean, that’s basically the primary function of the state…that monopoly on violence. In my view, framing it like this makes a lot of the tactical orientation that I was discussing before make sense. When you are an occupied community, you very clearly see the subjugation that’s taking place. How “nice” your occupiers are is of little import; the fact that they’re there is transgression enough. Since we don’t have access to the “legitimate” flows of power (and if we did, we couldn’t use them to liberatory ends), we have to think differently. This is where operating as guerrillas comes in.

OODA Loop

Guerrillas are small groups that fight asymmetrically against a more powerful opponent. With us being tiny right now, it’s worthwhile to figure out how to fight in a way that makes our weaknesses into strengths. One method into this is the OODA loop. OODA stands for observe, orient, decide, and act. It’s a method for making strategic decisions in an iterative way. We observe our surrounding, circumstances, and current data. We then orient ourselves to our situation, making judgements based on that information. We decide what to do based on those judgements, and then we act upon those decisions, constantly iterating to make new decisions. The size and structure of decentralized and distributed organizations allows for iteration to happen more quickly, leading to an advantage over slower centralized structures.

Generally, the path I see to success is through operating via a distributed model of autonomous units, coordinating only when necessary, while also keeping the information network alive as is pertinent, and an alignment on vision and values. By any means necessary, but not all means. Especially if the group is operating as a singular organization, a la the ELF or ALF, ideally there would not be people that do tactics that violate that maxim. Means-ends unity is how we create the world we want. We can’t get liberation by exuding oppression.

Formations for Resistance

Before I leave, I want to list a couple strategic frameworks for organizing. The ones I’ll focus on are:

Encircling (i’ve discussed this in another post)

Fabian Strategy and Ethical Guerilla Warfare

Encircling

Encircling is when you surround an enemy in a way that doesn’t allow them to escape. You leave them two options: surrender or defeat. My conception of how this relates to organizing is that you take an issue that you’re trying to respond to (usually a system of oppression), and you encircle it with campaigns running in parallel. A campaign is like a series of actions/tactics, employed over a period of time. Since systems of oppression are…systemic, you would take a systems approach. You would work cross-functionally, looking for leverage points to exploit, and exploit those. My basic outline is that you’d have a campaign that starts off very non-confrontational, making appeals to the system of authority, and as that doesn’t yield “capital S” success (you can’t vote in socialism or decentralization), you ratchet up the confrontation, though only to the level that you can handle. It acts as a radicalization pipeline, strengthened by the results of the other campaigns. There would also be an extreme campaign, where folks are doing as confrontational of actions as they are willing to do. The rest of the campaigns would be in the middle, where they are relatively confrontational, moving towards heightened confrontation. Everything is moving into a more militant direction, where people are learning their power.

Fabian Strategy and Ethical Guerrillas

The Fabian strategy gets its name from Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, a dictator of Rome. His army was fighting against the much more well-equipped army of Carthage, so he opted for fighting a war of attrition. This sounds a lot like the situation social movements are in. It can be easy to think we have to fight might with might, but it’s a senseless and undesirable approach to try to outgun the state. We can use a guerilla orientation to organize in ways that highlight our strengths while exploiting their weaknesses. Building on this strategy will allow us to grow our movements and continue to fight, while simultaneously making it harder to put the movement down.

I also advocate for an ethical approach to this fight. By any means necessary, but not by all means available. There are certain actions that won’t yield us the results we want, and there are other actions that can only be useful in concert with other actions and campaigns. Broadly speaking, we want to minimize the harm caused to folks while maximizing the disruptions to the status quo. Here are some ways we can do this, some of which intersects and overlaps with the encircling framework:

Focus on grassroots organizing and building community power from the ground up. We have to think like stewards and coordinators rather than leaders; our strength comes not from a being a tiny centralized group, but an autonomous network of agents.

We build up our capacity, by creating multiple levels of engagement into the movement. we can combine non-confrontational tactics where we gradually increase disruption as support grows with giving support to more militant segments. This leads to a continual, dynamic (see nonlinear) process of education, advocacy, construction, and disruption.

Think about how to disrupt the status quo in a way that doesn’t target the oppressed. Instead of prevent public transportation or emergency vehicles from being able to travel, maybe focus on lavish events where some really terrible decisions are being made by oppressors at the expense of the oppressed. Actions can simultaneously be symbolic and direct.

Plan targets systemically. Keep the guillotine away. We don’t get our problems solved just by attacking elements within a system. If a leverage point ends up being a specific person… be very sure about understanding how to interact in a way that gets you the results that you want. Tactically and ethically, it becomes very hard to justify targeted attacks.

Uphold solidarity and mutual support among allies while respecting a diversity of tactics. Our analysis should be expansive enough to allow any tactics that could work within our ethical framework to be permissible, even if we personally don’t feel comfortable doing those tactics. As I said before: it’s not “anything goes”, its “we have to be willing to do anything we can that doesn’t violate our ends to achieve our means”.

If people can’t get behind your ideas, then your ideas need to be reexamined. Everyone has a horse in this race. People have to be able to understand that they have power as individuals and collectives, along with how to use it in non-coercive and non-oppressive ways. Meeting people where there at, showing up in real solidarity, and putting your ideas into practice goes way further than an isolated philosophical conversation.

We also have to keep fighting. This doesn’t mean that we are constantly ourselves fighting—through building distributed movements, we can take breaks and be sure that the network still functions. We won’t be able to create a new world in a single move, but through persistence, critical review, and intelligent strategy, we can grow and tend the seeds of change.

I hope this was interesting to ya. It’s a little different topically and format-wise than what I usually do, so let me know if this was interesting or useful. Solidarity forever 🙂

42 notes · View notes