absolute destiny apocalypse

Vienne on AO3

[kuethemoon]

need the rgu girlies to get on this asap it's so good. if an edit is made by a youtube profile with no picture and an incomprehensible username you know it'd gonna be good. (and in this case this person has been making endless utena amvs)

[boringkate]

When I was a kid watching tv was idiot coded and nerds read books, but now scrolling shortform videos is considered braindead behavior and watching tv means you're some kinda intellectual. You might think this shifting assessment of media's consumers might make readers into absolute super geniuses, but no. Only perverts read now.

[anywhoozles]

[ofsleeping]

[halondrus]

fuck with me

[vvienne]

the more I think about the ring cycle the more disturbing of a character siegfried becomes…. sinister & innocent, the ‘faithless faithful’

[jeffcross5000]

[crocordile]

a couple songs from my LPM playlist

book 1: famiily tree, belle and sebastian

book 2: knives out, radiohead

book 3: fade into you, mazzy star stonemilker, bjork

book 4: sit down. stand up, radiohead at the door, the strokes here comes my hand, bodies of water will you be me, kimya dawson supersymmetry, arcade fire

[1five1two]

'City Limits'. Shaun Tan. 2017.

[psilocervidae]

Was anyone gonna tell me that there's a Creature in The Terror. I thought it was just about 20 men named John sucking and fucking and eating each other in the Arctic.

[havingapoemwithyou]

Anticipated Stranger, by John Ashbery

[allesfresser]

Oh baby

[gailynovelry]

The fastest way to accomplish The Project is to cease being afraid of The Project. The Project cannot maim you. The Project cannot kill you. The Project is more afraid of you than you are of it. It is okay if The Project turns out differently from how it was in your head, and it is okay if it has flaws. You are capable of engaging with The Project.

[communistkenobi]

I had a lot of/still have some vestigial arrogance about quantitative methods over qualitative ones, probably in a combination of scientific misogyny + STEMlord superiority. But doing regression analysis and quant-heavy data analysis makes me realise more and more that you can justify basically any claim with numbers, and that you can construct your research in such a way as to output the numbers you want. which does not mean that all data are made up or that quantitative knowledge is all false. I think stories about scientists straight up inventing numbers or fudging experiments on purpose prove that there is a real difference between fraudulent and non-fraudulent research. but those data must always be narrativised & are always already narrativised. The act of presenting numbers itself is doing some of that narration because you’re already arguing that these numbers are worth presenting

[communistkenobi]

People in the notes are rightfully pointing out common issues with data manipulation and pre-loaded conclusions in scientific research (i.e., the academic version of asking "so, how often do you beat your wife?" and so on), but I should have clarified that I'm not really talking about that. I'm talking about completely legitimate, above-board scientific research.

For example, I've had students ask me (in good faith) how it was possible for international medical bodies to report different counts of COVID-19 cases during the early years of the pandemic. And one of the answers is that you need to first define what you mean by a "COVID-19 case." Do you include self-reported incidences? Waste water data? Geo-fenced social media posts about people complaining about their coronavirus symptoms? Federal estimates? Hospital data? How do you compare countries/territories/substate entities with mandatory reporting mechanisms vs countries/territories/substate entities that rely only on voluntary self-reported cases? And what combination of these do you use? How you construct what you mean by "case" is going to impact the outcomes you report. These different counts of COVID-19 cases can all be true simultaneously, not because numbers are made up, but because they all come out of different methodologies that can be equally valid.

And this is true across all science, not just social science. Bill Clinton said it best lol: "it depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." This feels obvious when you look at scientific research that uses "skull measurements" as their object of analysis - the concept itself is white supremacist, regardless of how "sound" the research is. But even something as apparently self-evident as a COVID-19 case still requires a definition, and how you define your variables is necessarily going to impact how the research goes and what conclusions are drawn.

These definitions are always embedded in political & social assumptions. And again, this does not mean that science is all made up or nonsense or whatever. There is a widespread fetishism of "objective knowledge" that is itself ideological - the idea that knowledge can be divorced from all historical and political contexts, that you can scrub bias from research and simply report the facts. Valuable, well-supported, well-constructed scientific research is always embedded in these contexts. Not just as a result of researcher assumptions, but of the material context it exists in - what research resources are available, how & what research gets funded, the academy's relationship to the state & non-government bodies that both provide data and use that research to inform policy, the historical relationships universities often have with settler-colonialism and imperialism that give them access to "foreign" research subjects, etc etc etc.

So my overall point (which I didn't communicate well) is that data can always say what you want to some extent, for good and for ill. And research results (at least in my experience) tend to surprise you in ways that require explanations, which themselves can be fully justified, but again, exist within many different contexts that influence how you interpret them - and not just the results themselves, but your own surprise at your results

[absolutearsenal]

[the-apocrypha]

a pox on all your houses Shane Hollander/Ilya Rozanov || T || 19k || Part 1 of 2

Alternate Universe - Canon Divergence, Getting Together, Sort Of, Situationships, Relationship Status: It's Complicated, Tuna Melt Canon Divergence, Pre-Tuna Melt, Fluff and Crack, Crack Treated Seriously, Ilya Rozanov Fucked Around Now He's Finding Out

"Chlamydia?" Ilya has never heard Hollander's voice reach such heights in the absence of a cock. "You have chlamydia?" "I did not get it on purpose," Ilya complains.

Svetlana: I'm going to fucking kill you

Ilya quirks an eyebrow.

Between his nationality, his profession, his love life, and the way he generally behaves as a human being, Ilya is very used to receiving death threats. This isn't the even the first one this week.

He does worry, sometimes, what he will do if he ever runs out of clever ways to reply.

Ilya: I will still be hotter than you Ilya: And richer Ilya: I hope you're not plotting my murder for the inheritance because no one is getting shit from me, it's all going to my massive fucking tombstone Ilya: And a solid gold statue of me Ilya: Outside the mausoleum I will build for all my trophies

I have already sent the concept art to my law—he's halfway through typing out, when Svetlana's reply finally pops up.

Svetlana: You gave me fucking CHLAMYDIA

Read on AO3

[vvienne]

Underrated aspect of utena is the sympathy for child characters with viscerally uncomfortable desires