#subversion

[twopoppies]

Harry really wants to show at each of his concerts that he knows all of Louis' songs 🙂‍↕️

https://x.com/i/status/2062631928814026813

That little smirk. He knows exactly what he's doing. The "excuuuse me?" of the person recording is SO accurate

[thefloralmenace]

Sometimes the answer is to subvert the rule instead of breaking it.

Anarchy post #5 or something - enough of you have been super sweet about being inspired and hopeful in the tags of my other posts that you've encouraged me to share more of my personal ideology.

So there are good and bad rules out there, and I have a personal analysis I go through to make that determination for myself:

Does the rule achieve its intent?

Is the rule enforceable?

Does the rule disproportionately affect certain people?

Does the rule cause people unreasonable/unnecessary stress?

A good rule is "Yes," "Yes," "No," and "No" - any deviation from that suggests the rule should be ignored, modified, or abolished, but you won't always (or often) have the ability/power to do that. If you've encountered a bad rule, you can decide to break it or take the path of trying to convince the relevant authority to amend or remove the rule, but there is a third option! You can subvert the rule.

I'll give you a quick example of a good rule: You need to wear safety goggles when working with power tools in the woodshop. What is the rule trying to achieve? It's trying to keep you safe in the event of an accident. Does wearing safety goggles help protect your eyes? Yes. Is the rule enforceable? Yeah, if you're the woodshop manager, you can easily walk around and see if someone isn't wearing goggles and ask them to either put them on or step out of the shop. Does this rule disproportionately affect certain people? No, anyone who is able to use power tools should also be able to wear safety goggles. They make ones that go over glasses too. Does this cause unreasonable/unnecessary stress? As long as you keep some spares on hand for people to use (which pretty much every woodshop does), no one should be stressed by this. Good rule.

Now here's an example of a rule that I determined to be bad and what I did about it: My college science department has a policy that if you don't show up appropriately dressed for lab (i.e. long pants, lab coat, goggles, and close-toed shoes) and can't change and get back within 20 minutes of the lab start time, you will get a zero for that lab. There are only 10 labs per year, so that's kind of a big deal. Issue: People often just forget they have lab in the afternoon, especially during the hot months and come to lab in shorts. They rarely forget to bring their lab coat and goggles or wear close-toed shoes, but people frequently forget about long pants. What does this rule seek to achieve? Making sure everyone comes dressed properly for lab. Does it achieve this? Nope. You can't disincentivize forgetting, so no matter how extreme the punishment is, students will forget from time to time. You can't punish forgetfulness out of a person. Is the rule enforceable? Yeah, people do get turned away from lab if they're not wearing long pants. Does it disproportionately affect a certain group of people? Yep! Students who live off campus have no hope of getting changed and getting back in 20 minutes, but people living in the dorms across the street can. Does the rule cause unecessary stress?Yep! People used to regularly cry, panic, and beg to trade pants with someone in the big college group chats to avoid getting a zero for lab.

My solution: Take away the rule's power to stress people by accommodating instead of punishing. I got six pairs of pants in sizes XS to 3XL, wrote "Emergency Lab Pants" on the thighs, and established a box for them in the student common area that anyone could borrow from. This helps people get to lab safely dressed and it provides a safety net that removes the stress of making an easy human mistake.

The reason I went that route was because 1) Breaking the rule and getting away with it was basically impossible and also unsafe. 2) I figured arguing with the department about the policy wouldn't get anywhere. They'd just ignore that you literally can't disincentivize forgetting things and go on about people needing to learn to be responsible for themselves or whatever.

And something interesting happened: the department got completely behind this project. They realized it decreased lab absences and provided a change of clothes if someone spilled something on themselves during the lab. Professors put the Emergency Lab Pants box in their syllabi, and the department invested in another set to be kept on hand in the lab offices.

So even though that very harsh rule still exists, it has been divested of its ability to cause people stress and panic - all because somebody analyzed the rule for the first time and determined that it stressed people out while failing to achieve its goal.

[blackflash9]

That Time When AC3 Flipped Indigenous Portrayal

I always liked that AC III flipped familiar tropes about Native Americans in media, particularly regarding the language barrier and cultural awareness. Ziio mocks Haytham for assuming she can’t speak English, subverting the usual narrative where the comedic effect of not knowing the 'language of the land' is on the indigenous.

It is also Haytham - not Ziio - who causes the bar commotion despite his rather arrogant and baseless assumption that her culture would make her more prone to violence despite only being in the country for roughly a couple days. This also highlights that she understands the land and its people far better than he does.

Redcoat: "Oi, where you goin’, cully?" Redcoat: "No. The other cock robin." Haytham: "Well, I uh… I WAS leaving." Redcoat: "Oh? And now?" Haytham: "Well, now… I’m going to feed you your teeth." Kaniehtí:io: "And you were worried I was going to be the problem."

This also extends to Connor, as he regularly defies expectations by displaying more morality and virtue than many of his colonial counterparts. He criticizes the manipulative nature of the media for countering lies with more lies.

Sequence 5: Stop the Presses (Transcript)

Samuel Adams: "So now you've had a chance to see how it all works. Untoward actions will upset the citizens and inevitably lead to the guards being called. Depending on the severity of your transgression, they may simply search a bit before giving up and returning to their posts. But should you offend them severely or repeatedly – they'll become much more aggressive in their pursuit. I've shown you three ways to turn the tide. Remove wanted posters, bribe town criers, or visit a printer to create your own propaganda." Connor: "This feels wrong. Why not just speak to someone and explain my innocence?" Adams: "You can't be serious?" Connor: "We counter one lie with another. Words on paper instantly taken as truth. And all of it without question."

Calls him out on his hypocrisy in fighting for freedom while owning slaves.

Sequence 6: On Johnson's Trail (Transcript)

Samuel Adams: "Of course. I'm headed to a meeting with some men who should be able to help. Why don't you come along? It's good to see the people finally taking a stand against injustice..." Connor: "Says the man who owns a slave." Samuel Adams: "Who, Surry? I practice what I preach, my friend. She's not a slave, but a freed woman... At least on paper. Men's minds are not so easily turned. It is a tragedy that for all our progress, still we cling to such barbarism." Connor: "Then speak out against it." Samuel Adams: "We must focus first on defending our rights. When this is done, we'll have the luxury of addressing these other matters." Connor: "You speak as though your condition is equal to that of the slaves. It is not." Samuel Adams: "Tell that to my neighbor—who was compelled to quarter British troops. Or to my friend who's store was closed because he displeased the Crown. The people here are no freer than Surry." Connor: "You offer excuses instead of solutions. All people should be equal and not in turns."

And even stops Israel Putnam from kicking a dead enemy’s body - emphasizing that even someone as ruthless as Hickey was still a man.

Sequence 8: Public Execution (Transcript)

Israel Putnam: "At ease, men! At ease! I said lower your goddamn guns! This man's a hero! The General can be so stubborn sometimes. Piffle, he said, when we warned him something like this would happen! Piffle!" *Israel Putnam kicked Thomas' body* Connor: "Stop." Israel Putnam: "He wanted to kill the Commander. Nearly killed you as well. He was a scoundrel." Connor: "But still a man." Israel Putnam: "Hmph. You're nothing, if not consistent."

Assassin’s Creed III challenged the traditional portrayal of Indigenous people as either savages or passive victims, instead presenting them as individuals with intelligence, morality, and deep cultural awareness. The narrative highlights their ability to navigate complex social and political landscapes while exposing the hypocrisy and shortcomings of colonial figures. Rather than being depicted as primitive or completely naive, characters like Ziio and Connor demonstrate a greater understanding of their environment and the moral contradictions of their time. The game doesn’t just critique the British - it questions the American revolutionaries, revealing how their rhetoric of freedom often excluded those who did not fit within their social order.

Through Ziio and Connor, AC3 asserts that Indigenous people were not merely bystanders in history but active participants who approached their world with wisdom and integrity.

[drdovaqueen]

Narrative, Music, and Why Siffrin ISN'T* the Main Character: An ISAT Essaypost

[Spoilers for the entirety of In Stars and Time ahead, read at your own peril]

Something I really appreciate about ISAT that I see nobody else talking about is the narrative framing. Ostensibly, Siffrin isn't the main character of ISAT—Mirabelle is.

She is the one to go on the hero's journey, having her call to action in the King's attack and her mentor "dying". It's her country she's determined to save, it's her burden to live up to the "change god's blessing" bestowed by her mentor in her last breaths, it's her crew that she leads through obtaining the House keys. In every conceivable way, it is Mirabelle's story. Even when we arrive at the events of ISAT acts 1 and 2, we are still experiencing the story through Mirabelle's perspective. The player may be experiencing the narrative through Siffrin's eyes but so many important moments revolve around Mirabelle, her connection to the crew, and the overarching goal of defeating the King. The gameplay similarly revolves around Mirabelle as we use our powers to make sure Mirabelle can her journey. It is even stated explicitly by Odile in the first 10 minutes that the only reason Siffrin leads the group in combat is because of his proficiency in traps and keeping the team alive. After Act 2 though, something very interesting occurs... Siffrin happens to the plot.

Now obviously Siffrin has been important so far in guiding the group towards victory, but in Act 3 and beyond he starts to mess with the narrative. After defeating the King doesn't work, Siffrin attempts to break the loops in other ways. In doing so, he shines a spotlight on the other family members in an intimate way that allows them to be truly seen. We get to know these people better with Siffrin, and as that happens the narrative focus shifts more towards the family. Over the course of Act 3 and 4, it similarly shifts around to the King, the Head Housemaiden, the people of Dormont, etc. Our dear Siffrin also starts to share more in the narrative as he attempts to escape the prison of his own making. Through all of this though, Mirabelle is never truly uncoupled form her position as the "main character". She still has all of her character moments, new ones to boot, and is still the person to dispose of the King every time. This all changes in act 5 however.

In a twist of irony, though Siffrin rabidly insists on "sticking to the script" he also causes the plot to derail in a spectacular manner by trying to break the narrative. He tries to supplant Mirabelle's post as the main character by landing the killing blow on the King instead; an idea the Universe viscerally rejects and counteracts. He fails the "script check" on all of his allies, and then when he tries to do the job himself the House contorts and breaks in an attempt to stop him. Even then, having the powers of a demigod, he still cannot best the King and it is Mirabelle with the rest of the team who defeats the King once and for all—her hero's journey left intact. Mirabelle's grip on the plot is simply too strong, there's no room for Siffrin to have his big moment that is demanded of the narrative we perceive (after all, he has been vital at multiple points in saving the country). Thus, he must have it as an antagonist.

In emotional agony, the final fight begins, and something magical happens within this moment... something narratively unexpected. Siffrin's antagonism towards his family centers them all as cruxes to the narrative instead of just Mirabelle. Sure each of them was important in the progression of the quest, defeating the king many times, and saving Siffrin's hide, but fundamentally the perspective was still always centered on Mirabelle. In needing the support of his family, Siffrin makes each of them equally important to the plot vis-à-vis the threat of universal collapse. Similarly in Act 6, if you've been going for the two hats ending, Loop will have their own moment of narrative importance as you remind them just how much they've aided in everything. This entire progression is aided by the musical cues of the soundtrack.

Before you even start the game, you'll hear the track "In stars and Time" playing in the menu. This song establishes the main theme of the game and the story, while also creating an immediate loose connection to Siffrin as he's one of the only things we see in this menu. That connection is then further ingrained when we hear a small bit of the motif in the opening cutscene. This immediate connection of Siffrin to the main theme is then juxtaposed by the vast array of songs that use this theme for strictly narrative purposes. "The Journey So Far", the 3 base House tracks, "Power of Friendship", "It's finally Over...", and "Isn't It Over?" is what the player hears for the vast majority of the game's runtime which continuously reinforces its narrative-centric identity. In spite of this though, there is always that lingering feeling of the theme being connected to Siffrin that one can never really shake. That early planted seed is never truly able to be unrooted, and only develops further when we arrive at "Power of Love".

In the moment we hear "Power of Love", not only is Sif's family concerned with defeating the king and freeing Vauguarde, but also with saving Siffrin's ass from the King. That inkling, that dual function, has returned and continues further with the slowed down rendition of "It's Finally Over..." that we hear. Something is obviously wrong with Siffrin and the world. the track builds narrative tension while also bracing the player for the hell about to be unleashed with "I WON'T LET YOU GO HOME" and the Siffrin fight as a whole. After Siffrin's battle theme settles into its two main motives (which are based upon the death intro and "An Island North of Vauguarde"), the first theme it immediately clings onto afterwards is that main theme. Just as Siffrin steals the moment of the narrative, so too does he appropriate its the musical idea. The theme is then morphed again in "Tell Us Tell Us Tell Us" and "You Want To Stay With Them" as the focus shifts towards the group dynamic with Siffrin as the focal point—just as it does in the written narrative. Even afterwards with the plot driven uses in "It's Finally Over (Reprise)" and "A Long Journey", there's still a feeling of something greater. There's a happiness not only in the completion of the quest, but also in the group resolution of long standing emotional issues. It can be especially felt in the final part of "Long Journey", with the happy lullaby feeling like a nice resolution to the story and a last send off of rest for Siffrin.

What's curious is that the two hat music doesn't ever include the main theme, which is perfectly fitting. Loop is vital to the story of ISAT, but their character arc and needs are fundamentally different and thus require different musical cues to match. Loop is mad at their loses, at what they could've had, what they imagine should've been rightfully theirs. They're mad that they only suffer and suffered where Siffrin succeeded. More importantly though, Loop is mad at themself for not seeing the now obvious answer to their long ago problems... Such problems are thematically distant from Siffrin, Mirabelle, and the story as a whole, and so the music is different.

(Funnily enough, during two hats Loop calls the King a main character, which is right in its own regard but I will save that for a different time.)

And so concludes my ISAT diatribe. Small details like this is why I love the story and lore ISAT so much. There's so much, both intentionally and unintentionally, to dig one's teeth into. And all this stuff about the narrative and music is just one facet of why ISAT's ending feels so exceptionally impactful to me. If you've read this far, I do very much hope that you've enjoyed my writings and I am curious to see what others have to say about this. Much love <3

[Edited because I somehow got Loop's pronouns mixed up TwT]

[kindaskimpy]

Chris Hemsworth and Teresa Palmer film reshoots for their new submarine action-thriller movie Subversion in Sydney's Paddington.

[dougielombax]

“He’s with the angles in heaven.”

“Uh. You mean the angels?”

“Hmm? No. Angles. He was very passionate about geometry.”

“Oh.”

[apesoformythoughts]

"Every institution now (perhaps they always have) sells defiance. Corporations tweet slogans of liberation between quarterly earnings reports. Celebrities posture as revolutionaries in couture designed by conglomerates. Even government departments sponsor “subversive” art installations. The gesture is always the same: a raised fist that never leaves the sandbox [...]

It’s no accident that slogans like “speak your truth” dominate our discourse. When every truth is personal, no truth is public. Power thrives on that. A thousand private “truths” make no threat to the single bureaucratic order that quietly manages them all."

— "Academic Pseudo-Radicalism: The Charade of "Subversion" Christopher Lasch 1991"