Latest Posts by niavirrivain - Page 8
Weird giant frog.
what do superheroes with secret identities do in worlds with daemons. how are you supposed to stop people from realizing it's you when you're the only known person in the city with a daemon of that specific species.
Unless you're able to separate and team up with a witch's daemon or something. Or you're still a kid.
Seems to of missed the target - 0's a good divider, as is 1, perhaps on 690420? Or 691420, of course.
YES I'M GAY:
faGgot
dykAe (the a is silent)
trannY
sideways sunday
HAPPY IDES OF MARCH
Been thinking a bit on the controversies around harry potter's author, since I read a bit of fanfic, and, well - in recent years, I have to come to the opinion that the best possible way to get at someone is to turn their own work against them.
And, well, like, besides which, while don't give her more money of course, its clear that the supposed political stratagem of telling folk to never engage her works is pure foolishness.
(And its not like American schools actually teach critical thinking anymore; I may of dropped out of high school, but it was in what's generally called a "middle upper class" neighborhood, which I have since come to learn means working upper class, so from what I hear, that's more than most are getting, and I didn't get any critical thinking in that time.)
Back to the point of writing this - and I know its possible I just missed this happening - why not call her by the least traceable name of the main villain? Ya know, you know who. Don't hyphenate it or anything, I don't even recommend capitalization - in fact, if its not clear that she's the one your talking about without reading a sentence or two around it, the best analytics *these* days won't be able to filter it out from the (admittedly few, so it may be for the best to use those more often too) other uses of you know who.
Well, he seems to be the only competent crime lord in setting; presumably, he therefor has no issues with relatively legit ways of making money - and of making goons if their a bit short on cash.
pokemon theory i just thought of: new pokemon appear in the pokemon universe when they're designed in this one. they're created ex nilho but they have retroactive realness; they weren't here yesterday, but today they've always existed.
pokemon researchers have had to suss this out on their own over decades, and it's a really unpopular theory, made worse by the fact that no one can come up with a better one. from their perspective pokemon generate spontaneously but in both chronological directions, and the similarities of many pokemon seem to be detived from a conscious and creative understanding of the world--their world, though? what other world could there be?. there are ice cream pokemon and pokeball pokemon and sword pokemon and trash bag pokemon.
there are so many pokemon with both wings and a beak. is this like swords? is there an ur-flying type that this class evokes? there are so many canine pokemon. but what is a canine? is there such a thing? there's only one set of sword pokemon, right. one tea-set line. is *feline* a coherent category? would the ur-feline have two legs or four? why do so many pokemon have humanlike bodyplans-- but then again, why so few?
pichu has always been the prior form of pikachu. why didn't it get counted in order? why do we call it that instead of saying pikachu is the middle evolution of the pichu line? why can so many trainers remember finding this out well into their journeys? why didn't ash start with one?
this is why pokemon researchers do a lot of labwork, drink heavily, and use ten year olds for field research. you can't have an existential crisis if you don't even know what time is yet.
There's some folk being very aggressive about using the subscribe conversation feature instead of pestering people, without bothering to ask if there's other requirements. Such as the ones being broken by them being able to comment on the post.
I was (likely)shadow banned for tagging fic updates- how to save yourself:
Thanks to a lovely suggestion, I looked into tumblr's new(ish) 'subscribe to the conversation' feature since, by all apparent deduction, tagging people (as requested by them) on fics has gotten me shadow banned.
How subscribing to a conversation works:
On the website, you subscribe by clicking the ... navigation on the upper right of the post and selecting 'subscribe to the conversation'.
On the app, you subscribe by clicking 'notes' on the bottom left of the post and then the bell icon in the upper right.
You will be notified of every reply and reblog with fresh content.
To set this up for replacing tagging:
Create either a side blog or a non linked blog.
In the blog settings, under replies, set it to 'Only members can reply' (website) /'Only Tumblrs you follow can reply'(app).
(I am hoping that the website one becomes the standard as at the moment you will have to ask mutuals not to comment.)
Create an Update post on this side blog that says something such as "Subscribe to this post to be notified of updates to x fic!", a link to the work on the main blog, and any other relevant information.
As you make the Update post, click on the menu icon in the upper right as you are making the post and under 'Who Can Reblog'(website)/'Reblog Control'(app) change it to 'No One'
THIS WILL INCLUDE YOU. (You can change it again by editing the post and going back to the menu.)
You can create as many Update posts as wip you have.
To use this for replacing tagging:
When you want to update your readers there is a new part, edit the Update post to include links to where the update is posted.
Reply on the Update post that there is an update and that the link in the post. "Chapter 5 posted! Find the link in this post!"
Readers can click on the notification to go to the post, then click on the link to go to the new part.
It's a bit of a faff, but once set up it's actually easier than tagging! No list to maintain, no limits, people can manage their own subscriptions. And may save you from being shadow banned like me!
If you are a physically disabled peep who thinks pd folk are above mentally disabled folk in the struggle? Go fuck yourself and dont talk to me.
If you are a mentally disabled peep who thinks md folk are above physically disabled folk in the struggle? Go fuck yourself and dont talk to me.
Disability is disability. Diff shit, sure. But same stink and equally as valid. And yes I get peeps have fucked each other up before in the struggle for rights and humanity before. Which is exactly what Im talking about rn. Because its that punching down bullshit again. Walking over each other and then pointing out how "well were better than them atleast?" Shove it up your ass if you got one. Or any other hole. Im not picky.
Were in this shit. If we like it or not. And we gotta figure it out together. But youre scum if you think demonizing others makes you a punk. Or a real activist or whatever.
And yeah. That included self diagnosed folk too. Diagnoses are a privilege. Hard to come by. And sometimes very dangerous. And if youre a real one you know that.
So shut the fuck up and quit being assholes. Fuck the system up. Not each other.
Image Description: A pale woman in a striped pink and white tank top with darker pink tone pants stands besides a man in a wheel chair. She has a ponytail, is looking at him to her right with both hands raised in anger and with frown. Man sits beside her with tan skin, an uncomfortable frown, full body cast and neck brace. There is a text bubble leading from the woman asking "Why don't you just try harder?" (The words "try harder" is underlined for emphasis.) Text at the top reads [#mentalillnessfeelslike]. There is a logo at the bottom left for Mental Health America. And the artists watermark on the bottom right that reads [Gemma Correll]
Image description: There is a plain white background with pink and black text. The pink is in a more elegant font. The top line is in pink and larger than the rest. It reads, "I AM SICK". The next line is in the smaller simple, black font. It reads, "I'm not stupid or mentally disabled. I'm not crazy. It's not stress, it's not in my head. I'm not causing this to myself. I'm not making it up. I'm learning about myself everyday. How well I deal with this sickness. I can still do things for myself. I like my independence, but sometimes may need your help." Then the font changes to an equally small pink, elegant font and reads, "Don't take that as weakness, or that I'm giving up. I'm trying the best I can." Finally, in the black font again it reads, "We all need a little boost from time to time, lend a hand. You never know how much it could mean."
No, that's the same sound as or again. Thinking about it more, I suspect it comes down to 'its kinda an o, but it's weird, so double o'
Not previous fellow, but no - floor's oo is pronounced the same as the o in or.
Acknowledgement. Thanks. Explanation makes sense.
My kind sir, I've clearly fucked up my previous attempt to explain what I thought someone else was saying, but: This stressing out function sure sounds like it'd do what you'd want to be able to do if your the sort of person who just wants to blow the heck up. Said person likely also has other explosive functions; that one is just - I blow up, and I'm no longer in the scene. Fetch me next one, since I'll be back.
(With reference to this post here.)
When it comes to evaluating the cost versus utility of abilities in a tabletop RPG, it's important to remember that, from the player's perspective, a character being removed from play even temporarily is a cost. It's arguably the most significant sort of cost that can possibly be imposed, insofar as it's a cost which imposes itself directly upon the player by removing their ability to participate in the game.
This means that occasions to make use of such an ability are likely to be rare for two reasons: first, because players are disinclined to use a ability when the benefit doesn't measure up to the cost (and the perceived cost of being removed from play is high), and second, because frequent removal from play naturally limits the player's ability to do anything, even if their character gets better later on.
Of course, you can offset the high perceived cost by making the effect of the ability very powerful, but that runs the risk of our ticking time-bomb of a character overshadowing everybody else; even if they don't use their self-annihilating "I win" button in a given situation, the knowledge that they could is going to warp everybody else's priorities.
This isn't to say that abilities which remove a character from play as a cost are impossible to work with. They're just a huge pain in the ass to get right, and they're so strongly self-limiting in terms of how frequently they're likely to come into play that it's rarely feasible to build a character around them.
Which brings us back to the central conceit of Eat God, where every player character is built out of exactly three rules toys. Asking someone to take up a third of their entire character sheet with the ability to blow themselves up isn't a winning play from a player engagement perspective, no matter how you implement it; either they use it rarely and a third of their character sheet is dead weight, or they use it frequently and spend most of the session removed from play. Neither is something I'm inclined to randomly inflict on a game.
What about the safety laws created by incompetents to fix problems that don’t exist?
What if they’re created by corrupt officials to destroy competition? Or to get kickbacks to the officials?
In fact, RSC is just assuming regulations would’ve saved the sub, because regulations good™.
Figured I may as well discuss this matter since I see it come up a lot - high support needs autistics often say that the talk of lower support needs is framed in such a way as to invalidate them.
Firstly, before I get into this, I think what I've heard is reasonably true, and a conversation around it is needed. I feel that I need to declare this, because I feel these groups aren't communicating (much at all), and while I'm trying my best, its likely that how I'll say things is still bad, and everyone's constantly up in arms about the due and proper virtue signalling.
To be clear, we're considered "Mid support needs". It seems to be the category of folk who are actually clashing with high support needs autistics the most, although we are wondering if the diagnosis may be in error, likely with the original diagnosis that was 'upgraded' to autism and then mid support needs autism being correct instead.
The primary purpose of this post is to bring clarity to what others are trying to go on about, as communication errors are entirely too easy, especially as so many people are using slogans rather than more words, and for many of those cases forgetting and not forgetting is distinguished by at most three words in a larger sentence.
The most commonly upsetting topic, about support levels in the autism diagnosis, has two reasons behind it, which combining frustrates understanding.
The one I suspect will be more relevant to most high-support needs folk is that by placing support needs in the autism diagnosis, one sometimes avoids labeling the overall person's support needs, and sometimes rolls other conditions, deserving of their own labels to target treatment, into the autism diagnosis.
As a consequence of these two factors, many folk at all official autism levels fail to receive the supports that they need.
The other one is - the official boundaries of "Mid support needs" Just Sucks. Its being visibly autistic and sufficiently accommodated.
As a consequence, firstly, it ranges from 'stims with chair texture and otherwise just quirky' all the way to 'significant support needs being handled by family'.
And secondly, its possible to fall below it onto low support needs through a wide variety of measures that have nothing to do with support needs at all, such as having of been traumatized out of displaying overt symptoms, or, if the doctor isn't paying enough attention, or isn't asking the right questions and you stim less than displaying other symptoms, having of developed social skills due to an applicable special interest, such as psychology, or a major aspect of society.
This is getting a little long (and I don't recall how to do read mores), so I'll end it here for now, although I expect to come back to these matters.
i mean this as is they seem like they’re good at the subject but honestly interpret it as whatever
I thought that Hopepunk was just part of the broader what I'mma call Xpunk - where X is a thing, and punk actually just means future for some reason.
If grimdark isn't a genre, does that mean hopepunk isn't, either?
(With reference to this post here.)
"Hopepunk" is basically the culmination of nerd culture's mistaken propensity to treat genre as a prescriptive checklist of tropes. The term's proponents invented a definition of a genre of media they believed ought to exist, then went about looking for examples of media that fit that definition. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way – genres in media are something that can only be identified after the fact, as a description of emergent trends in the dialogue between creators. If you try to declare a genre into existence by fiat and work backwards to figure out which media belong to it by going down a checklist of tropes, you just end up with a random grab-bag of works which aren't meaningfully in dialogue with each other.
(Some definitions of "hopepunk" do admittedly somewhat resemble romantic fantasy, particularly the late 1980s to early 1990s strand, but as far as I can tell this is coincidental – it's abundantly clear that most of the term's proponents have never read a Mercedes Lackey novel!)
some lovely reminders <3
Predominantly found in Australia, the Letter-winged kite (Elanus scriptus) is a rare raptor. They are the only fully nocturnal raptor, and their soft almost owl-like feathers ensure they can fly quietly and without disturbance.
[x] [x]
Jfc y’all. Imagine doubling down this bad.
“Hey, I just made a new term!!”
“Uh. That term you made isn’t really new, and has been used in the past to say some really fucking harmful shit.”
“Uuuuuh actually I made it up myself and you’re lying.”
“??? Bitch literally here’s my sources-“
“But that’s a DIFFERENT word. Mine means this and that means that.”
“But… in *this context*, that word is really fucking bad. You should use a different fucking word?”
“This is slander and the actions of a hate group trying to silence me. I’m going to shout about the word even more now. It’s not even the same word!”
“THIS IS SUPER FUCKING OFFENSIVE TO ME JFC ARE YOU TRYING TO BE HURTFUL?”
“See?? They’re claiming I did this on purpose! This idiot doesn’t even know I only did 30 minutes of research lmao!”
This is the hill you wanna die on? This is the term you really think is best for the entire ass community??? Better than natural multiplicity I guess……..
I understand people being annoyed by literal-level nitpicks of stories and especially thought experiments, but I do think there is some nuance there that gets overlooked by the extremes.
There is such a thing as a story that works only on an allegorical level but falls apart and makes no sense on the literal level, and this can legitimately make the more emotional parts of it feel forced, artificial, or illegitimate. It can cause story collapse and overshadow whatever higher points the story was trying to make.
One very uncontroversial and infamous example of this is the original ending of Fallout 3, which the narrative treats as a matter of courage and heroic sacrifice for the greater good but which only ends up being a horrible mess because of how clumsily the game arbitrarily bans you from sidestepping the whole conflict by thinking about it for just a minute.
And I'm sure that a lot of people will have encountered this kind of thing too at some point. Maybe it's all the issues with the original ending of Mass Effect 3. Maybe it's how MCU's Thanos has a profoundly stupid plan that raises tons of questions. Maybe it's the entire Skyrim Thieves' Guild questline. Maybe something happens that is just inconsistent with what was previously established in a way that seems thoughtless and you're left rolling your eyes at people saying "But the story has fantastical and unrealistic elements so anything can happen really, don't think too hard about it." even though you are really just thinking about it a normal amount.
I'm all for being charitable to stories. In fact, I consider myself more charitable than average when something doesn't seem to immediately make sense in fiction or when there's something that looks like an inconsistency or error, but sometimes writers do make actual mistakes. They are human. They overlook things and neglect research from time to time.
I feel like an argument against "nitpicking" these literal aspects of a story comes too close to being a general "you are not allowed to criticize this dimension of fiction" argument.
I also just feel that stories that make sense on every level rather than just the allegorical one are better-written all else being equal.
feels like some people become parents because they've been taught that is the natural progression of how adults gain power (i.e. the power their parents held over them in their childhood). and now they need to be at the top of that power structure, to finally be okay.
which is very, very sad. and also, crucially, not a healthy reason to become a parent.