As much as I like the concept of the multiverse, sometimes it makes me wonder

How is there even a chance that multiverses exist in the first place? Cuz if you think about it, a multiverse contains literally everything and every possibility of every action every single thing can do at any time.

Which means there will 100% be a universe where people build a multiverse ending bomb, but it also means there's a universe which stops said universe from building said bomb, there will be universes that control other universes to do their bidding, there will then be a universe tries to make a multiverse within another multiverse, and, since there's infinite universes, there will definitely be people dimension hopping and time travelling to other universes in every moment of time in every dimension.

Of course, this could all be avoided if there were limited numbers of universes, but then that begs the question: why is there a limit? Isn't space infinite? Did God just stop creating new universes for whatever reason? If there's a limited number of universes, then doesn't it also mean a person's free will is also limited, albeit having a very large pool of things one can do? What the fuck am I even rambling on about in this post? How many times have i used the word -iverses? Is there an anti-universe? Is the construct of the universe and the multiverse even real or are we living in a simulation, which is in turn part of a bigger simulation of a multiverse of simulations controlled by higher beings who are in yet another simulation?

one thing i need to start living by is “become the thing that you want” if i want friends who throw themed parties maybe i should start throwing those parties. if i want someone who writes me love letters maybe i should start writing letters for the people i love. if i want to hang out at museums and pretty cafes maybe i should invite my friends to these places. and maybe even then i won’t find the kind of people i want to be around. but then i would have become the exact person i want to be around. and maybe that’s good enough.

Trust

From what I can see, all the commentary on the Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes movie thinks this story is trying to answer its philosopical questions, and completely overlooking the fact that all the answers these characters find are the wrong ones. The right answer is in The Hunger Games and Catching Fire and Mockingjay. You can tell because the main character of this story is the villain in the other ones.

Actually, no, we should know what a woman is. If you’re going to challenge a term, you have to come up with a new definition. If we are going to have a rational conversation, all terms must be defined.

If woman doesn’t mean adult female human, what does it mean? If you’re getting defensive reading this, that’s a problem. You should be able to know what you’re arguing for. You should be able to tell people what you’re arguing for. Otherwise, what the fuck are you even doing? Why are you arguing about something that, if undefined, logically does not exist?

I would love for everyone to be happy. Delusion is not happiness. I need to know whether this is delusion or not.

The Housecat Philosophy - Ep 31

Ep 00 || < Prev || Next >

Read the next four episodes on Patreon || support me on ko-fi~✨

Okay Okay Okay—More Samder Slides headcanons time..You’ve opened Pandora’s Box…

Personal headcanons/design things:

Keeps food in his pockets and then forgets it’s there. The way I know the amount of crumbs are insane.

Re-attached his logo with haphazard stitching so it matched Virgil’s :]

Always loses one sock in each pair. ALWAYS.

Has THE most insane takes. Leads to a lot of fun Patton and Logan discussions actually (*Hits them with the Trolley problem*: DISCUSS)

Patton would take the Utilitarian approach I think…Would think you should always sacrifice the one person in the trolley problem instead of the five because it minimizes the most suffering).

To that point, I really do think all the sides would enjoy watching The Good Place. Probably also The Magic School Bus.

All film media in Patton’s room is on VHS. Even if it came out recently. He made them that way.

I know we’ve literally seen his room in canon but in my heart it looks like Howl’s Room in Howl’s Moving Castle (insane levels of eclectic).

Has set the kitchen on fire 237856 times. It will happen again.

Has hand-made bracelets (themed each of them around one of the other sides).

Also has a hand-made doll collection…Roman’s doll is kind of like a traditional princely doll, Logan is probably a cube craft doll, Virgil’s is Coraline style (later redoes it with Remus’ help to add Virgil’s extra legs and mandibles (they’re articulated. He’s very proud)). Remus is a finger puppet and Janus is a sock puppet (those last two might change later)…

To that point: he still has a spider phobia, but he’s working on it (mostly for Virgil. A lot of it is him being like “could you please describe “x” to me, or draw me a picture before you revert so I know what to expect? :).” It’s going well.

One time they tried theorizing what kind of spider Virgil was. Patton immediately threw in Jumping Spider (he’s not) but Logan was happy to hear Patton had done some kind of research into something.

He’s Roman’s test audience/proofreader. He may be a Yes Man, but he’s good at spotting when character motives are unclear in a story/just generally to bounce ideas around with. They have days where they parallel play. Patton does his arts and crafts and Roman does his writing. At the end of it, they swap and critique.

Me throwing my takes at you (thank you for coming to my TED Talk):

Trying to Title A YouTube Video is Hard

Titling for a YouTube video is wild cause me and my agent and a dozen other creators will all get in a group chat together and try to come up with the most clickbait title possible, then choose a title that is 75% of the way to that. That way you have room to get more clickbaity if the video underperforms but you're still striking a balance between clickable and palatable

Anyway, if you want to see

The Stoic Method: Ancient Therapy for Modern Problems ❌

Stoicism: Ancient Therapy for Modern Problems ❌

Can Stoic Philosophy Improve Your Mental Health? ❌

I Learned Stoic Philosophy and You WON’T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT! ❌ Ancient Therapy for Modern Problems: Stoic Philosophy Explained ✅

It's on Nebula now, and out for $15+ Patrons!!!

The Prayer of an Atheist

If a deity or higher power exists out there, I have seen no evidence of you. I look at this world and see no need for anything metaphysical.

It wasn't always this way. I was raised in a faith that touted itself as a relationship between man and god. I was told there would be signs and that I would personally experience the presence they worshiped...

if I just believed.

I never got it, no matter how hard I tried.

It was a miserable cycle.

Get nothing.

Doubt builds.

Get told by "better" followers that I must be doing something wrong.

Hate myself for doubting.

Try harder.

Repeat that over and over.

It's funny. The people I was told were deceivers had such stability. They had evidence. They had a foundation I could stand on.

Sometimes, I still want there to be something out there. In the days when shadows claw at my brain and the void calls loudest, I let myself wonder.

I can not go through that hellish cycle again though.

So, if something bigger is out there, I need proof. More than that, I need to believe that something is worthy of following.

Apparently there's currently discussion in science (humanities in particular) about whether video essays could be accepted as academic writing on par with the academic papers we currently have

I think that's awesome as fuck tbh

Look Kristen is a kid so its understandable and Ally is great and I'm sure has a plan for this. But Kristen should not be a cleric lol. I hope that after the wizard synogue incident Cassandra takes the Archfey deal to keep herself safe and Kristen loses her powers because honestly based on her RP that girl has NO wisdom. She has NEGATIVE wisdom. If you don't like the gods currently on offer but can't take responsibility for keeping a new one alive (because you're a kid) then you should just respec. Pick a charisma-based spellcaster class that doesn't require a bunch of work like the Int classes or responsibility like the Wis classes. Give up your soul to Fig (or just give it back to newly-Archfey Cassandra) for Warlock spells idk.

there's an interesting statement being made about identity if you accept all of the wolf 359 characters are equally themselves as of the finale: eiffel is form without memory; hera is memory without form; lovelace is both, but without continuity of experience; minkowski is both with continuity - and she's still not the same person that goddard recruited. if we're never the same people we were, but we're always ourselves, then the only way the self can be defined is through its own assertion - and maybe it can be argued that "my name is-" (and later, being able to say "my name is hera" reintroducing herself to pryce) and "i am captain isabel lovelace. no matter how hard you try, you are not taking that away from me" and "without me, who are you?" / "renée minkowski, and that is more than enough to kick your ass" are all the set up for (and part of the answer to) "am i still doug eiffel?"

Idolatry

Please click for better quality

I’m here to chew on the House of Fëanor like a tiger with a pumpkin full of raw beef, not to defend any of their actions, but, man, sometimes I see Second Kinslaying discourse and I just gotta be like…

i mean they did also kill jesus try to regain the 2 Silmarils from Morgoth first. that was a pretty significant thing that happened. like i understand where you’re coming from here but they very much did try to regain the 2 Silmarils from Morgoth first.

Like what the FUCK do you think the Union of Maedhros and the goddamn Nirnaeth Arnoediad was FOR.

Want to get your thoughts on something you've touched on in a couple places. A pretty popular idea in the fandom is that one of the (in-universe) reasons airbenders have gone so hard into the peace-and-love monk thing is a self-awareness that, if they didn't, there's not a whole lot anybody could realistically do about it.

Like, Southern Air Temple pretty strongly implies that Gyatso solo'd a room full of comet-roided firebenders. It killed him but he did it, and while he is a master Airbender, we're not given any real indication that he is uniquely so, right?

I have many thoughts on this! Sorry in advance for the long post! And sorry if this goes a bit off topic!

Short answer: I don't agree.

Long answer:

We've seen that nations' cultures tend to reflect their native bending styles. Or vice versa. It's probably a chicken and egg scenario. The Fire Nation chose to spread (like wildfire) and is full of hot headed, impetuous roid-rage sufferers who can't see or plan for the long term. Fire itself easily becomes ungovernable and is at best muzzled/leashed, always waiting for the next chance to bubble over in unplanned / unpredictable / generally unhelpful directions (Hi Zhao!). So an element shapes a culture shapes and element until you've got a positive feedback loop (or in the case of the Northern Water Tribe, a negative feedback ourobouros due to outside pressure). Importantly, neither culture nor element develops in isolation; I think they develop simultaneously.

The Earth Kingdom is probably the most rigid and unchanging, even when it would benefit them to change/innovate. We see rigidity and humourlessness in response to change or the unexpected (see Toph's parents) and we see an inability to let go of a bad idea, or mitigate the consequences / think on the go when things that were clearly bad ideas go bad in ways anyone with a non-earthbender brain can see coming a mile off (think The Avatar State episode). Earth digs in when it should retreat, stands solid when it should duck and weave. It is grounded to the point of stupidity (unless you're Toph or Bumi, although even Toph seems to be unbending so far). It's linear to the point of being unable to deviate from that line.

This is me guessing, but I figure since fire and water are opposites, air must be the opposite of earth, right? So while we'll never see airbending culture in a non-shrunk-down-to-one-person form, we can look at earthbending culture for its dark reflection. Well, probably not dark, but you get what I'm saying. They'll be opposites in world view. We can extrapolate.

So if earth is grounded, humourless, aggressively traditional, linear, then air must be constantly fluctuating, unchained, lighthearted, bonkers-all-over-the-place. The heaviness of earth would dictate that problems should be faced by digging in and facing them head on until the problem blinks first. The lightness of air would dictate that problems should be faced the opposite way: blinking first i.e. removing yourself from the problem entirely. The linearity of earth dictates that fights are solved by fighting - you punch me, I punch you. The non-linearity of air would seek to recontextualise a problem until it's no longer a problem because we all forgot what we were fighting about in the first place, i.e. throwing pies at it or busting out the marble trick. The heaviness of earth would cause excessive earthly attachment; the lightness of air would cause excessive detachment from worldly concerns.

To start violence is to make a statement that you wish to be involved. It's rooting yourself to a particular dispute, choosing a hill to die on. It stems from attachment. This is earthbendery behaviour (and Zuko-y, but let's not go there). To never start violence is to never invest, never dig in your feet and make a stand. To be detached. (I'm oversimplifying here.) It's clear from in-show examples that Aang's pacifism is of the "ladies don't start fights but they can finish them" variety; he's got no problem with self-defence (caveat: we have no idea how typical an air nomad Aang was). But he never attacks first that I can think of.

Violence is a very direct tool. If someone starts a fight with you, and you decide to continue it, you're choosing the most obvious action. Since when is airbending direct or obvious?

All this to say, I think that pacifism, peace and love, monkiness, etc., was more likely a natural and inevitable outgrowth of air nomad culture, caused by constant culture / element interaction, rather than a conscious choice.

So I think airbenders "have gone so hard into the peace-and-love monk thing" because the nature of their element creates a culture that discourages the traits required for effective offensive violence, and the inherent detachment and ever-changing nature of air naturally encouraged spiritual (i.e. monkly) pursuits rather than earthly ones, like whatever the conflict of the week is. I don't think self-awareness of the dangers of their element factors into it. Not to take away from Gyatso's accomplishment, but I think air is nowhere near the most dangerous element. From what I've seen so far that would be Fire or Earth, though I'd give the edge to Fire because they self-generate, and also because they've spent a largely successful century dominating the other elements. Waterbenders and earthbenders can be neutralised by taking away their element; airbenders - due to the very nature of their element - probably can't get past that initial avoid and evade instinct to become legitimate offensive threats.

As for Gyatso, I think he's an outlier. We know little about him so far, but we do know that: a) Aang says he's the best airbender (in I think the Southern Air Temple?); b) he's good enough that he was granted a statue while he was still living, learning, improving; and c) he's good enough that the monkly council (of which he is part) granted him the honour/responsibility of being the quasi-dad of the Avatar. These things tell me that Gyatso was the Spiders Georg of the Airbenders. I suspect Bumi is the same for the Earthbenders, and at least as far as the philosophy of bending is concerned, Iroh may be so for Firebenders. Even the example of Gyatso nuking the comet-enhanced firebenders is a case of defensive action in ultra extraordinary circumstances: he was staring into the teeth of a genocide while mourning the disappearance of his quasi-son and the likely loss of the world's only hope / chance at stopping the war. That's how far you have to push an airbender before they'll take a life. Unless the Avatar world pre-war is a lot more godawful than Aang has implied, airbenders probably wouldn't have been taking lives frequently enough for them to get to the point where they would have to start questioning whether they should consider pacifism.

I think what this fandom idea ultimately is, is a desire for the hidden badass trope. Everyone loves it when the most peaceful character in the story is revealed to secretly be a Rambo-level fighting badass, right? Who didn't love it when kindly grandpa Roku manifested in his temple and unleashed a volcano? But I think this trope fundamentally takes something away from the appreciation of Airbending, Air Nomad culture, and the concept of Pacifism as a whole. This is just my interpretation, but applying the "secretly the deadliest all along!" trope to airbenders undermines their commitment to pacifism and makes it performative rather than earnest. It's a cop out; an acknowledgement that violence actually is the answer, and even those head-in-the-clouds monks know to use it when the chips are down. This show goes out of its way to show that non-combatants have value and a place in this world that's worth fighting for, that fighting goes way too far pretty frequently, that non-violent solutions are valid, even preferable. It would kind of undermine that message if all of the elements were easily weaponisable.

Something I've loved so far about Avatar is the show's earnestness. There have been no Marvel-style fakeout bathos plots. I feel making airbending secretly the deadliest element or similar would be exactly that sort of thing. Can't my pacifists be peaceful not because they're secretly untouchable badasses who carry the biggest stick, whom the rest of the world leaves alone out of fear, who are not a threat only because they have chosen not to be, but because that's just who they are?

On the other hand: Aang's been a one-man-army plenty of times. We've seen that; that's undeniable. So air is stupidly powerful as an element. No denying that. Gyatso did murder a bunch of people trying to kill him, so air can be deadly. But I don't think your typical airbender could be deadly. If you gave a can of airbending to a firebender, an earthbender, or even a particularly provoked waterbender, I don't doubt that they could kill people with it. But the culture that the element generated - rather than a conscious choice by that culture's participants - prevents them from taking the direct, violent, solution. And I think that culture developed in tandem with airbending, so there could not have been a time when airbenders were deadly as a rule. Air shaped airbenders as much as airbenders shaped air, and it shaped them into non-violent people.

There's a lot of power in the idea of consciously choosing, and sticking to, something that is perhaps not in line with your natural abilities. Styling airbenders as deadly-but-choosing-peace is a great way to explore themes of agency, identity, strength of character, morals, maturity, etc. But, to me, there's also a lot of power in the idea that some people just can't - not won't, but CAN'T - fight their way out of things, and this doesn't make it any less wrong to genocide the crap out of them.

If the fandom wants to headcanon airbenders as secret badasses who consciously choose nonviolence, I say a) go ahead! there's more than enough evidence to support that conclusion; b) I respectfully disagree; and c) is Iroh not enough?

tl;dr in my opinion, air's pacifism was a natural outgrowth of, and restriction imposed by, the element rather than a conscious choice; airbending can be deadly but airbenders aren't; Gyatso is not representative; 'speak softly and carry a big stick' is all well and good as a philosophy, but those who speak softly and don't have a stick are of value too.