Nowhere

Welcome to the inn, traveler. What you'll find in the menu: My animated series obsesion du jour, videogames, sometimes politics/social issues and once in a blue moon stuff actually made by me. 

[dontexpecttomakesense]

Adastra Playthrough Masterpost (or APM for short)

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23

[rjdrawsstuff]

They're really just Bloodborne characters tbh

[bigtabart]

[victusinveritas]

https://aeon.co/essays/silicon-valley-has-a-science-fiction-problem

[darnitjack]

Good essay

[thathopeyetlives]

Honestly I don't think it's all that great.

Like a lot of things in this genre it kinda points out differences between ideals expressed in science fiction (or cases when something dystopian has been produced), generates negative affect from them, and smears that negative affect all over a bunch of stuff with (in my view) little rational justification.

Also MASSIVE gell-mann amnesia regarding EAs and longtermism IMO, and "what do you care if the bridge falls down? The most important thing is that it centers minority voices" mentality.

I think some of these problems are common in an essay that jumps between many different topics.

It says we shouldn't care about a supposedly theoretical, far off human extinction by evil robots and then talks about Sam Altman perceiving that the potentially evil/dangerous robots are forming right now in his own hands.

Frankly I think that the fundamental basis of this article is that the author hates the idea of lone visionaries and likes socialist or left-wing-community governance, and they would be humiliated if lone visionaries or a non-socialist future were to carry the day. The self-interestedness and immorality of the current crop of tech people and the antidemocratic attitudes, contempt for normal/currently existing humanity, etc is almost window dressing, it's not really being explored.

[samueldays]

Bad essay.

One: Why does the top say "stories of a better future"? That's not what science fiction is. That's not even what the article body is about. The article later says "Gibson’s vision was explicitly dystopian".

Two:

Star Trek depicts a post-scarcity, post-capitalist society where money has been abolished and humanity works toward collective betterment.

Star Trek is wrong or incoherent on this point. "Post-scarcity" is a buzzword that collapses under scrutiny. The strict interpretation is physically impossible because Chateau Picard is scarce; there aren't enough French chateaus to go around. The loose interpretation is already accomplished. Roddenberry didn't understand why money is.

Three:

Seldon’s most important act is not his prophecy: it is founding the Second Foundation, a hidden network of scholars working collaboratively across centuries. The novels’ moral architecture is explicitly anti-authoritarian: every time a charismatic individual attempts to seize control of the mission, the story presents it as catastrophe. The series is, at its heart, a sustained argument for the indispensability of checks and balances.

The Second Foundation is an unchecked shadowy conspiracy of telepathic puppeteers making sure mainstream society doesn't diverge from The Great Plan. This is super authoritarian. Did Taskale ever read the books, or did she just hear "network of scholars" and think "that means ingroup, so it must be good" ?

Asimov’s vision of the far future is a defence of the mundane infrastructure of civilisation: the archive, the committee, the negotiated agreement

and the shadowy conspiracy. The shadowy conspiracy is very important to that particular sci-fi vision! And it only negotiates agreement within the conspiracy, not with the rest of civilisation.

Four: "Whitey on the Moon". This strikes me as a values difference pretending to be an argument. Taskale wants a maximin society and positions himself as a stereotypical mom telling off her child: you can't go to Billy's house Mars until you've finished your homework! I want a freer society: you're not my mother, you're not Elon Musk's mother, we are not children, you can shake your fist at the sky.

Five: "Silicon Valley’s selective reading" and similar pejorative phrases. So much projection, Taskale should find work in a cinema. Taskale is selectively picking parts he likes, such as the scholarly side of the Second Foundation but not its conspiracy control, then complaining that billionaires are only picking the parts they like. Fuck off. Double fuck off because the billionaires have the better excuse here for picking only some parts to implement: different sci-fi stories are contradictory and it's impossible to implement them all at once.

Six:

J R R Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (1937-49) is one of the great works of 20th-century literature precisely because it is an extended meditation on the corrupting nature of power. [...] Its central moral is not that evil can be defeated by the right hero wielding the right weapon – it is that power itself corrupts, that the Ring cannot be used for good by anyone, and that the only salvation lies in relinquishing the will to dominate entirely.

Hey Taskale, what's the third Lord of the Rings book named? Can you think about how Aragorn's arc contradicts your claim of what the allegedly "central moral" is? Do you see how there's some will to dominate involved in calling up an army and going to war?

Tolkien’s fictional race of hobbits prevail not because they are powerful but because they are outside the logic of power.

This is misinformation! When Frodo the hobbit reaches Mount Doom, he does not prevail this way. He claims the Ring for his own and puts it on with the intent to seize power.

(The other hobbits at large are not prevailing either; they're getting dunked on by Saruman.)

The essay is very, very, very bad throughout. Much of it is wrong, and more of it is not even wrong, it's buzzwords and slurs and free-association and Whig history and what Orwell described as "It was not the man's brain that was speaking, it was his larynx".

Science fiction provides the aesthetic cover for this anti-democratic vision. It makes rolling back the franchise sound like bold futurism rather than Victorian regression.

Taskale has no business complaining about any sort of "anti-democratic vision" after he cheered the Second Foundation. Taskale does not have the wit to realize that rolling back the franchise can be bold futurism, either.

Take away the prejudicial framing and look at Star Trek again, then try to describe with parallell words to Taskale's complaint: "It makes rolling back money sound like bold futurism rather than Iron Age regression."

Money, like the franchise, was invented at some point. Perhaps these were good ideas and should be kept, perhaps these were bad ideas and should be abolished. Science fiction is a subcategory of speculative fiction: "What if?" stories where the author fantasizes about some change to society. It is good and right that authors can speculate about abolishing either or both of money and franchise. But Taskale does not want to let science fiction explore ideas freely; Taskale demands that science fiction should be politically correct and it's only "real" science fiction when it's exploring his favored ideas. Taskale wants disfavored ideas purged from science fiction and put in a containment box called "reactionary futurism" instead.

Fuck him.

[brazenautomaton]

Stop trying to claim genres for your politics. Stop doing it. Stop. According to insufferable leftists, every genre other than "contemptible marvel movie" is actually made by leftists and only for leftists and non-leftists are actually stealing it from them by enjoying it.

This is anarcho-totalitarianism. "Everything within my politics, nothing outside my politics, nothing against my politics." Art is meant to be escape from the suffering these people inflict on others, and they hate anything that offers escape from their cruelty.

[cookingwithroxy]

Am I the only one who's bothered by the fact that the essay's supposed to be about science fiction but they bring up Hobbit/LOTR?

Like, that's not sci-fi, that's fantasy! Two entirely different genres!

I know it's small and pedantic but..

[boog-how]

King of Thorns

[boog-how]

The thornbearer

[boog-how]

In his shadow

[rydengg]

nobody is immune but some of you are… concerning susceptible… 😟

[angerydome]

This is a completely non partisan post btw.

[solo-wing-alex]

[angelshizuka]

"Stella didn't choose this marriage either" and "Stella still chose to be Stolas' abuser" are two statements that should co-exist.

I need people to understand that Stella is a victim AND an abuser, these things can co-exist in the same person. She's just not a victim of Stolas, but she is a victim of the system. Meanwhile Stolas is a victim of the system AND a victim of Stella (and Andrealphus). That's the difference.

"We want more complex female characters." You people can't even handle Stella.

[froggyhopping]

Kris and Asgore are VERY similar to each other in how they both self sabotage themselves and their relationships to focus on whatever pursuit their obsessed with, and holding onto the past in favor of not moving on. But ppl ain't ready for this conversation yet...

[dontexpecttomakesense]

No, no. You're right. Please continue.

[crazycometspecular]

A small comic

[heronherring]

In honour of Transistor's 12th anniversary, here are some 'Transistor as social media posts' I made!

[memewhore]

[2urban2fantasy-deactivated20241]

Woman murders man in broad daylight

[theknightinslippers]

[halorvic]

[no-one-offical]

‎

[crypticgoose3]

beautiful like to reblog ratio on this

[drtanner]

That's because people are reblogging it every time they see it. Like I'm doing right now lmao

[d0uble-0h-se7en]

One of the most baffling moments of harassment ive ever gotten was when I said that all those copy pasted inbox messages claiming to be from Gaza hit every single red flag for an internet scam with researched links about how many of them are from the US, and how GFM doesnt have bandwidth in Palestine, etc, and then in a few weeks people in the notes had taken the trouble to look up my pronouns to accurately tell me in excruciating detail how they wanted me to kill myself.

It was so fascinating from a psychological perspective. You do this horrible, unforgivable thing of telling a complete stranger neutrally pointing out the red flags in something theyre concerned about that they deserve to die a horrific and violent death, and before you do that you do the research to accurately he/him him. It showed this fascinating conflict between what they thought of themselves (Good People who make sure to be Trans Allies) and their outward actions (people who wish death upon others for challenging their pre-conceived ideas of the world. Objectively the actions of horrible people)

I really dont know what to say to that and I still dont lmao, but it haunts me to this day

[d0uble-0h-se7en]

No youre hitting another fundamental side to this behavior: you can quell your own insecurity towards your unconscious knowledge that you are the type of person who sends people death threats for challenging your preconceived notions by cherry-picking ways to show your supposed allyship. Its easy to say all the right words to technically not misgender a trans man while you harass him, thereby establishing yourself to others perception as someone who has a moral principle to uphold trans allyship even against those who are One Of The Bad Ones. When you are inevitably put before your own machine of internet harassment when you step out of line, you can point out how youve, for example, never misgendered someone. But that doesnt change whats fundamentally rotten and disgusting about you as a person: that you are the type of person who sends people death threats for challenging your preconceived notions. What they dont understand is that there is no amount of performative allyship that will change that rotten part of you

[zxid]

collection

[fishlung8877]

[godnonon]

A crossover of Spy x Family and Batman I made by photoshopping different panels together. I hope you enjoy

[calllynx]

Op turned off reblogs but I MUST

[twilightofthesandwiches]

One of the things I see people often forget about Undertale’s Pacifist Route is that it’s… inherently Defiant. In a way, more so than the Kill Everything Route. 

Flowey is the only person who will gloat about it so explicitly but… a lot of people in the world of Undertale kinda believe this is a kill-or-be-killed world, or at least that this is a world where some problems have to be solved with violence. Pacifist Frisk is basically the only person to say “No! There has to be another way!!” and then goes ahead and proves it.

I know a lot of people are inspired to do their Pacifist Run by Toriel, and I think that this is very heartwarming - but it’s important to remember that she didn’t believe that a Pacifist Run was truly possible herself. She doesn’t like that idea, she thinks it’s a horrible thing, but she still believes this is the truth about the world.

That’s why she’s so overprotective, after all. In her mind, a battle can only end with a monster killing Frisk or with Frisk forced to kill the monster. Both equally undesirable outcomes. Her only solution is to stay by Frisk’s side as much as she can and scare away monsters with the threat of physical violence.

That’s why the combat tutorial is a bit obtuse when it comes to giving out MERCY. Toriel never explicitly explains how the Sparing mechanic works because she doesn’t really believe that it’s a good idea. A Froggit has to sort-of explain it instead. The player needs to kinda figure it out themselves to show that they are really committed to giving out MERCY and capable of thinking a bit out of the box for it. 

And the whole Boss Battle with her… Sparing her is basically about proving to her that non-violence IS worthwhile. She can only see two outcomes; either her showy-but-mostly-harmless fire attacks will scare Frisk back into safety - or Frisk IS strong enough to kill her thus proving they can FIGHT in the many battles there are to come. If you deliver the fatal blow to her, she is at peace with her death, because she feels that it’s an indication that Frisk might be able to survive what comes their way. Because “being able to kill” is the indicator for strength and survival in her mind. 

When you succeed at Sparing her, you prove to her that this is not the only form of strength. That your own Determination and conviction for non-violence is stronger than her desire to keep you in. You prove to HER that there is another way out of this fight outside of killing her. So there might be a way out of the Underground without killing anyone too. And it works, although Toriel is still clearly worried that this little nonviolent child is still doomed.

And the whole thing with Asgore’s plan (which also includes Undyne’s motivations, and every monster who aides with it by attacking Frisk) is that it relies on the idea that killing humans is the only way the Monsters could ever go free, the only way the Underground could ever have hope, the only way any of their loved ones could every be happy. And the same kinda goes the other way around. People who actually know about the Barrier works, know that the only way Frisk could ever get free themself is by killing Asgore. Either Asgore kills Frisk to let the Monsters go free, or Frisk kills Asgore and lets themself be free. Monster or human, freedom can only be won via violence. It’s kill or be killed.

Meanwhile, Mettaton wants to stop Asgore’s plan, and again, can only see it stopped in a violent struggle. Frisk isn’t a good enough fighter to stop it, and so they should die to give their SOUL up to Mettaton, who will become strong enough to kill Asgore so that he won’t kill the humans. Heck, Asgore’s and Frisk’s deaths are also part of Mettaton’s plan to become a famous Star.

(Not to mention, Asgore doesn’t see himself as deserving of Mercy. He sees death as the only suitable punishment for what he has done. So again, violence as the only solution anyone sees.)

Really the only major characters who do not see violence and killing as an answer to their problems in some way are Sans, Alphys and Papyrus.

With Sans, really the only reason why he doesn’t see violence as a solution to his problems is because he doesn’t see ANY solutions to his problems anymore. He’s not a pacifist, he’s just totally passive and lazy. And of course, the one time he DOES actually get up and does something proactive, it’s when he FIGHT in the Genocide Route. Believing that even if he can’t actually kill the Human messing around with the timeline, he can at least use violence to annoy and frustrate them into submission. (And ironically enough, knowledge of Sans’ super-powerful boss fight probably motivated more people into the Kill-Em-All Route rather than stopped them).

Alphys uses lies and deception instead of violence. Again, she still believes any encounter between Asgore and Frisk will end with one of them killing each other. And the only way she found to avoid it is to create an elaborate web of lies in the vain hopes that it could convince Frisk to not get into contact with Asgore. Her non-violent approach is very conflict-averse. The only way she finds to resolve the issue of Asgore and Frisk both forced to kill the others for their goals is to simply prevent any sort of meeting between them at all.

Papyrus is really the only not-Frisk Pacifist in the cast. But a lot of it is due to characters leave him ignorant of some of the killing-related ultimatums in the game (he doesn’t know capturing Frisk means killing them and he doesn’t know Frisk needs more than a Human SOUL to pass the Barrier). He’s a sweetheart and I love him to death, but he’s an example of Pacifism that’s really dependant on naivete. Unlike Frisk, who knows what kind of no-win situations they get into and sticks by their (empty) guns regardless. Also, despite his goals being as humble as just wanting more friends - he can only see the prestige of the Royal Guard as the way to get there. That is, in a way, a value given to Violence. (See also: his inability to understand he’s not accepted into the Royal Guard DUE to his kind and nonviolent personality, rather than a lack of power).

The world of the Underground IS fun and whimsical and full of quirky and fun people. But many of these people also believe that violence and\or killing are necessary to achieve their current goals. Most of them don’t like that idea, most of them HATE this idea - but that is still what they believe. This is the kind of world Frisk falls into. And it’s purely a result of their own personal conviction and ideals that they manage to prove them all wrong. Prove that they are determined and clever enough to figure out a way out of every “kill or be kill” scenario the Monsters around them see as inevitable.  Prove that they can find a way to fulfil the Monsters’ goal without them having to kill Frisk or anyone else. Even if it means defying time and space and facing down a God of Hyperdeath to do so.

That is what it meant to be a Pacifist in Undertale, it’s not apathy, it’s not conflict-aversion, it’s not naivete, it’s defiance.

[emmasmoke8]

QOUTES FROM ACTUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUTIONS (but it's Dispatch)

"Since my last report, this employee has reached rock-bottom and shows signs of starting to dig" -> Phenomaman

"His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiosity" -> Robert

"I would not allow this employee to breed" -> Flambae

"This associate is really not so much of a has-been but more of a definitely won't be" -> Invisigal

"He would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle" -> Waterboy

"This young lady has delusions of adequacy" -> Prism

"This employee should go far - and the sooner the better" -> Coupe

"This employee is depriving a village somewhere an idiot" -> Punch Up (but only if 'village' is replaced with 'carnival')

"He sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to achieve them" -> Sonar