counterexamples

Real Analysis Gothic
  • For every epsilon there is a delta. Where is it? Epsilon does not know where delta is. Zero does not know where delta is, it is too far away. Nobody knows where delta is; every number is so far from the other numbers. They are getting further apart. Epsilon is so very small.
  • You are walking up a staircase. You try to take a step, but another step emerges in the middle. A hooded figure appears at the top. You scream and try to run downstairs, but this staircase has so many steps. It is getting closer, closer.
  • You compute a Fourier series at a point; it is different than the value of the function. That’s normal, you say, unconvinced, as you are overwhelmed by a sense of dread. You start to apply the inversion formula, but think better of it. You still have scars from the last time.
  • You cut yourself into three pieces and eat the middle one. It hurts, yes, but you are so tender. You do it again and again and again and again… Your mouth eats your mouth. You are perfect.
  • A year ago today you were teaching calculus. “So you see, it’s easier to take derivatives than integrals” you said. You coughed, the blood splattered out of your mouth, it formed Thomae’s function on the floor. Now you are at the same point in your lesson plan. The stain is still there. It looks up at you, expectantly.
  • You are talking to a complex analyst. Differentiable functions are smooth, he says. Bounded differentiable functions are constant, he says. What are you doing, he says. I’ll call the police, he says. He doesn’t say anything now.

Kylo Ren is a mess, but he’s a competent mess. Powerful, witty, and intuitive. The majority of Ren’s failures stem from a lack of faith in himself.

  • He senses something in Finn, but doesn’t act on it.
  • He clearly senses that Rey is a powerful force-user, but instead of trusting himself to handle the situation he runs to Snoke.
  • He knows - the Ben part of him, at least - that killing Han Solo isn’t right (I’m being torn apart), but follows through anyways because Snoke commanded it.
  • And as a result, he finds himself weakened. Subjugating grief into anger, already wounded, he impulsively chases after Rey and Finn.
  • When Luke’s lightsaber doesn’t come to him, you can see Ren lose faith in himself. It’s plain on his face. Later, when Rey starts to meet him stroke-for-stroke, he grows even more uncertain. Rey - who remains focused and furious - gains the upper hand, and kicks his ass.

(let me know if I’m missing any examples or counterexamples)

And ever Ren’s mirror, Hux’s failures are a result of him trusting himself (or at least, the institution and ideals that he identifies with) too much - placing too much faith in the stormtrooper program, in his weapon’s shields.

Atmosphere around low mass super-Earth detected

Astronomers have detected an atmosphere around the super-Earth GJ 1132b. This marks the first detection of an atmosphere around a low-mass super-Earth, in terms of radius and mass the most Earth-like planet around which an atmosphere has yet been detected. Thus, this is a significant step on the path towards the detection of life on an exoplanet. The team, which includes researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, used the 2.2-m ESO/MPG telescope in Chile to take images of the planet’s host star, GJ 1132, and measured the slight decrease in brightness as the planet and its atmosphere absorbed some of the starlight while passing directly in front of their host star.

While it’s not the detection of life on another planet, it’s an important step in the right direction: the detection of an atmosphere around the super-Earth GJ 1132b marks the first time an atmosphere has been detected around a planet with a mass and radius close to Earth’s mass and radius (1.6 Earth masses, 1.4 Earth radii).

Keep reading

a few things i’ve learned from trying to write more in the past couple of years

usual disclaimer that i’m not published and these are things that work for me, when i say “you” i’m being abstract and referring to myself, etc, etc

this is a VERY LONG post, to everyone on mobile, i apologize

Keep reading

I’ve been thinking a lot about the Broysc Quinncident, since it was brought up as part of the Quinn discussion last week, and why I’ve never really accepted the canon that Broysc was mentally ill/suffering from dementia by the time Quinn and the SW catch up with him. There’s a perception that people who don’t accept that canon are trying to soften Quinn, make him more palatable and easily romanced. And I’m sure that exists, but for me it was more that the writing for that particular scene felt particularly lazy.

 Meandering thoughts on my own headcanon follow below. Sort of navel-gazey, has severe problems with verb tenses.

Keep reading

The previous phenomenon, by the way, also explains some language universals: they’re more like universals of linguistic analysis than universals of the language data itself, and hanging on to them often requires playing loose with the rules.

For an example, let’s take the alleged universal that “all languages have at least i a u in their vowel systems”.

Cheyenne is a language that has no phonetic [i] or [u]; but it does have vowels that are [+front] and [+round], typically realized as [e] and [o]. Per some claims, they can even be realized as relatively close [ɪ] and [ʊ], so this perhaps means that we should still be calling these /i/ and /u/. Some variation in height is, after all, common in three-vowel or more generally two-height systems. (E.g. in Quechua /i/ and /u/ are lowered to [e] and [o] when adjacent to uvulars.)

On the other hand, Abkhaz is a language that has no phonemic /i/ or /u/; but it does have phonetic [i] and [u], which are allophones of /ɨ/, when next to palatalized or labialized consonants, respectively. So again, maybe this does mean we should be counting it as a language that “has i u”.

But the Cheyenne and Abkhaz cases are polar opposites! They do not have the same phonemes or the same phonetics.

One way to wring a universal out of it is to play switcheroo by what we mean with the universal as originally stated. Either it means “all languages have phonetic [i u]“, or it means “all languages have phonemic /i u/”, but it cannot mean both at the same time. — Or maybe it means “all languages abide by at least one of the previous two claims”? But if at least one language in the world can violate one of these more exact sub-universals, and if at least one can violate the other, then who’s to say that it would be impossible to violate both? It seems improbable, given how most languages do not function like Cheyenne or Abkhaz, but by no means inconceivable.

Another way to preserve an universal would be to switch to a more theoretical description. This could be something like “all languages have contrastive [+front]”. In typical cases, the existence of a vowel /i/, realized as [i] and in contrast to /u/, will cover this. Cheyenne also has [+front], just on the vowel /e/ instead of /i/; and Abkhaz also has [+front], just on consonants like /kʲ/ or /j/ instead of /i/ (same as many other languages with vertical vowel systems).

But at this point we have left easy descriptive universals. “Has contrastive [+front]” is not something we can easily observe in a language — it requires some commitment to featural phonology. If there were to be counterexamples, they might not be clear without theoretical analysis, either.

(It’s possible that Wichita is a counterexample for this reformulated universal. It has /i/, but it does not contrast with an /u/; and it has /j/, contrasting with /w/, but since it also has a contrast /k/ : /kʷ/, perhaps /j/ is simply [+high] [-round], and not [+front] as usually expected; and it has /e/, contrasting with [oː], but the latter might not be a phoneme but instead the realization of sequences such as /awa/.)

And being descriptively easy has been kind of the point of linguistic universals. They require as little theoretical attachments as possible, and therefore, they are surveyable in the first place. Probably the majority of the world’s languages have not been described in terms of featural phonology or generative syntax or most other more “deeply” theoretical frameworks, and in this sense it would be very premature to start speaking of “universals” within any of these theories.

People always talk about musical prodigies, I’m way more interested in late bloomers. And that’s partially because I am one - I did start learning piano around 5 or 6, but didn’t take it seriously and basically had to be forced to practice for 20 minutes a day by my mother. I only started putting any effort in around 19, which is supposed to be after the cut-off point but clearly isn’t since I got into one of the most competitive music programs in the country. But, again, 19 wasn’t anywhere near my first exposure to learning and playing music.

Now I have heard about other people like me, who were exposed to music at a young age but weren’t serious players until they were older - Wes Montgomery didn’t play the guitar until age 20 for instance. But are there any masters who didn’t have any musical training until their teens or later? Traditional wisdom says the cutoff point is very young but I’m curious if anyone knows any counterexamples.

furiosa murder faces, continued

inthroughthesunroof reblogged this from fuckyeahisawthat and added:

Yes yes yes to all of this. I also love how much Charlize was able to just emote on screen without anyone worrying about whether she looked pretty doing it. She makes faces to the same degree Tom Hardy does - often the same faces. She goes cross-eyed when she headbutts people. She contorts her face in grief, in fear, in pain, and in rage, rage, rage.

I didn’t know how much I needed to see a woman modeling that before this movie came out. It’s… I think I’m fully comfortable with being female for the first time in my life. My gender is Furiosa.

I’m pulling this out into its own post because…this is actually a big deal, and it’s not weird at all that it’s having a dramatic impact on people. I’ve heard other women say things about how they felt the movie changed how they thought about their own gender too.

I wrote about it a little at the end of this post, but having a female action character who doesn’t have to look pretty when she fights–who looks like she’s actually fighting, not performing a fight for the audience–is a big deal. It’s such a mind-bogglingly simple thing, and yet we hardly ever see it. Just think how much we’re used to seeing something like this:

(I feel like I should apologize to Black Widow at this point…I keep using her as a counterexample, and really, it’s not her fault.)

There’s friggin’ dust on every surface in this shot, there’s an explosion in the background, and she still looks like she just stepped out of the makeup trailer and is doing a destructoporn photo shoot.

At best, we get something like this:

This is what I call the “PG-13 fight” look, in which you can spend half an hour of screen time battling aliens and come out of it with a maximum of two artfully placed face scrapes/blood trickles.

To be fair, I don’t know if either of the above images are a still from the actual film or a promotional image. But promotional images are part of how the studio wants you to perceive the film (if anything, they’re more stage-managed than the actual shoot) so I think they’re fair game for analysis.

This is a promotional image from Fury Road:

Dirt! Neck tendons! Murder face! I mean, she’s got blood on her teeth in this picture. And while she looks slightly less dirty in the hyper-saturated color scheme of the finished film, this is just a very different image than we’re used to seeing when it comes to women in action movies.

And faces…boy does she get to have an amazing range of facial expressions while fighting! Here, I’ve been collecting them.

Actually…these faces are not amazing at all. They are totally the normal range of faces a person who’s fighting for their life might make. We just don’t normally get to watch a woman fight like a person.

It’s like…she has a complete range of emotions…or something.

It’s like…when actors don’t have to perform some set of expectations about femininity (or masculinity, for that matter)…they get to actually…act. What an idea!

R2-D2, the Heart of a Machine

In memory of Kenny Baker (1934-2016) 

One of the many things I love about Star Wars is that droids (and machines in general) are depicted as not inherently bad, but rather as tools that, just like the Force, and just like living beings themselves, can be used for both good and evil.

For even as we are shown us the mindlessness of the battle droids and the ruthless heartlessness of cyborgs like General Grievous, so too are we shown, from the very beginning, the shining counterexamples of C-P30 and R2-D2 – a pair of ‘machines’ that not only exhibit an extremely admirable sense of loyalty, but also possess a great capacity for Doing Good™.

Anakin Skywalker is the character perhaps most (in)famously known for having a great affinity for all things mechanical. To the point that some even see his need to ‘fix things’ as a manifestation of something deeply flawed or broken (or even inhuman) within himself. But though there is indeed an undeniable symbolism in Anakin becoming less and less physically human, losing pieces of his flesh and bone until he himself is fully imprisoned within a machine, I would argue that his affinity for fixing and modifying machines not intended to be viewed as solely a bad thing.

If anything, it originates as an expression of his own humanity. 

Even without taking into consideration the fact that, as a child, Anakin built C-3P0 from scratch as a gift for his mother simply in order to make her life easier, or all the various times he fixed broken starships using nothing but parts scavenged from crashes, saving countless lives in the process, there is one thing that always stands out to me: 

Anakin Skywalker programmed (or at the very least, encouraged) R2-D2 to have feelings.

It’s safe to say that Anakin loved that droid….and that R2-D2 ‘loved’ his master in his turn (much to the astonishment and consternation of many in their midst). And as General Skywalker’s most favoured astromech during the Clone Wars, R2-D2 saved his master’s life countless times in battle. But perhaps even more fascinatingly, even after his master was long-gone, lost within the “twisted and evil” machine of Darth Vader, this same droid went on to save the lives of the generations that came after.

While Vader is marching around being Supremely Evil™ and generally fucking shit up for everyone, this fiercely loyal little droid, this piece of Anakin’s goodness, is still out there, flying around the galaxy, keeping his beloved master’s kids company, and generally saving the day.

And that’s just beautiful. :’)

there must be a counterexample but i can’t actually think of a simpsons character who wouldn’t hate their lives on some level. like, i guess there’s flanders, but i’m not convinced he’s actually happy with his lot.

I’d also mind less if these counterexamples didn’t so often feel like they were exploiting horrible experiences I myself have known intimately as a cheap “gotcha” tactic

Talk about yer damn feelings, people

Notes from reading one too many romances with inorganic tension because the leads won’t just talk to each other oh my god. But some of these go for nonromantic plots too – and it sure would be great to see more that did. Always write stories that give nonromantic relationships the weight they actually deserve!

But ANYWAY.

I love angst, I love dramatic reveals, I love emotionally constipated characters, I love all the things that usually accompany a “use your words” plot. But it is incredibly frustrating when the problem a character is creating becomes so much bigger than the problem they’re avoiding. So, as soon as your character begins to be unhappy because they have a feeling they “cannot” express, please consider:

Reasons for a character not to talk about their feelings with the object of said feelings that can be strong enough to drive an entire plot

  • Feelings which are inappropriate to the situation (usually romantic):
    • Superior/subordinate
    • In-laws, lovers of friends, etc
    • Enemies. Not rivals; rivalry is personal and surmountable. Enemies, who have third parties invested in them staying enemies, thank you very much
  • Well-founded (even if ultimately inaccurate) fear that doing so will negatively and seriously affect a valued relationship, romantic or otherwise:
    • Founded in social norms: “I can’t tell you I love you; we’re both women" (this isn’t fear of third-party consequences; that there would be an ordinary plot problem. this section is purely about the object’s reaction)
    • Founded in experience: "I can’t tell you I love you; I’m not lovable" (i.e. abuse. use with extreme caution)
    • Founded in the other person’s prior behavior, if done very convincingly: "I can’t tell you I love you; I tried [more than] once and you shut me down”
    • Founded in straight-up common sense: “I did a legitimately bad thing and you will think badly of me if I tell you my feelings about this”
  • Doomed circumstance
    • We’ll never see each other again, so let’s not admit how sad that is

Reasons for a character not to talk about their feelings with the object of said feelings that are strong enough to contribute to dramatic tension, but really can’t drive an entire plot

  • Characteristic reticence
    • Reticence is essentially a personality trait, but it probably came from somewhere, and it definitely manifests differently depending on the character’s background
    • Class conditioning (comes in many varieties): stiff upper lip, Stepford wifeliness, aristocratic dignity; toughness, survival mechanisms, nobody-cares-so-don’t-whine; etc
    • Gender conditioning (mostly masculine, but not exclusively): boys don’t cry, don’t be a wimp, strength is silence, etc
    • Habit: politicians or diplomats, the solitary, those with authority
  • Inexperience and/or youth
    • “I don’t even know what I am feeling”
    • “I’ve never done this before and don’t know how”

Reasons for a character not to talk about their feelings with the object of said feelings that just make everyone roll their eyes and want to smack them

  • Spite, pride, anger
    • This is where rivalry belongs
    • “I’m too Cool And Independent to love you” (not to be confused with straight-up common sense: a woman who fears marriage will stifle her independence isn’t being prideful. A character whose reputation or self-identification hinges on not admitting something, absent any other reason on this list, is. Danny Zuko, I’m looking at you.)
    • Withholding affection out of anger is understandable short-term, childish medium-term, and abusive long-term
    • Use these if you want the character to look bad, of course!
  • Laughably ill-founded fear of rejection
    • There’s no stigma, nobody’s committed any major sin, everybody’s in a relatively healthy mental place, and the other person’s given no strong negative signs
    • And if you sat down and thought it through for ten seconds with a little bit of empathy, you’d probably figure out why they did you give that negative signal that one time

Pleaaaaaase, writers of romance and fanfic, understand that purely emotion-driven plots are really hard to do and try to avoid milking more tension out of a given situation than it can actually sustain. That is how drama becomes melodrama. At best.

Have I forgotten any common tropes? Anybody have examples of stories that break my half-baked hastily-crafted ill-thought-out rules?

anonymous asked:

Man, a comic I like just failed to deliver on a shirtless mud fight between a crossdresser, a genetically engineered dog, a biracial zombie, and a Russian cop. This should be a crime.

i feel like all comics have in some sense failed to deliver on this

(information on counterexamples is welcome)

brief notes on feminism, class and identity

This was sparked off by the confusion that generally predominates on the internet and in nominally left spaces about what ‘identity’ is. The standard ‘left’ identitarian position/response to anyone questioning the validity goes something like “Identity Politics and Intersectionality are radical theory about how race, gender, and class all come together to oppress and exploit millions of Americans” (as seen in this woeful article https://medium.com/@jeevesmeister/dear-wearetheleft-you-are-not-the-left-d01355f274d5#.no50qaezn). There are more than a few massive problems with this theoretical understanding that I can barely begin to condense into in a Tumblr post.

First off, intersectionality was Kimberle Crenshaw’s attempt to account for oppression within a legalistic framework to enable the construction of a legal class (this is different from ‘class’ as a material social entity) in order to create legal remedies to the specific problem of discrimination. Specifically, it was about solving the problem caused by the pre-existing legal classes ‘black’ and ‘female’ that did not account for black women (the most famous example being the landmark case where a firm laid off all the black female employees and claimed it was not unfairly dismissing them because of discrimination since they kept black men and white women on), and which operated to the legal disadvantage of black women and other women of colour. Like other forms of problem-solving theory, it is a liberal theoretical framework whose innovation and raison d’être is inclusion. Inclusion is not the end goal of liberation movements, nor is it intrinsically the means of getting there. As for taking intersectionality to be some type of social theory, I would argue that if you needed a model of ‘intersection’ between groups, whose fundamental theoretical definition was based on a discrete particularity that did not adequately account for the group as a whole (eg ‘women’=white women, ‘black’=black men), I would scrap that theoretical model and try to come up with something new that better accounted for the whole picture.

Inclusion is the fundamental liberal principle that lies behind notions such as ‘equal opportunity’, which was allegedly brought to us when women were ‘allowed’ to join the workforce in the postwar years in large numbers, and informs us that this is a factual reality, whereas anyone socialised female that has been abused or raped and lives with debilitating trauma, and/or is a single mother, can tell you that because of that they do not have the education, work experience and career status that males the same age in the same economic class have been able to accumulate in the same period of time without the handicap of being the sex-class. ‘Inclusion’ masks that material reality (of power and its lack) and states that there exists parity. Similarly, inclusion is able to mask other material power structures that may operate in a given space - the idea of ‘including’ one’s oppressors in environments that explored the intimate effects of oppression, especially on consciousness, was thought by second wave feminists and the Black Power movement to be anathema to liberation. It was in effect allowing your oppressor to determine your liberation (i.e. how much liberation they would let you have). As the approach of third wave feminism has let us see, it means dragging down the entire movement to be about the achievement of a peaceable consensus between oppressor and oppressed. The limits of ‘educating’ the oppressor were acknowledged by this ‘outdated’ second wave model, which is lightyears beyond the understanding that predominates today - which is all about accumulating ‘allies’ for your cause who may be enlightened at best, but despite this they still manage to benefit from and constitute, and reproduce those same oppressive structures. The disparity between professed enlightenment and action breeds understandable cynicism, which can lead to unproductive anger that lends itself to building essentialist belief systems which are essentially a formal inversion of the dominant ideology to ‘explain’ this incongruent behaviour. The biodeterminism of certain strains of Anglo lesbian separatism being a key example.

Secondly, the confusion of ‘identity politics’ with liberation struggles stems from a fundamental confusion between identity and class. The main thesis of identity politics is that groups that receive behavioural discrimination or differential treatment, somehow are classes in themselves by virtue of this fact alone. It overemphasises the symbolic to the disavowal or complete exclusion of the material/structural. Hence notions of ‘symbolic violence’ that grate against what violence is and what constitutes it. Class, very simply, requires exploitation as its basic condition. The identification of belonging to that exploited class as the rationale for the exploitation, follows the fact of exploitation. Women are exploited in domestic labour (via the family unit/male cohabitation) and the sex industry, and are corporeally appropriated by the class of men to serve male desires. Racialised peoples are marked to occupy low-status jobs within capitalism that ‘reflect’ their supposed inferiority, and are hyperexploited to be kept there. And then there’s the ideology surrounding it all. As a counterexample, homosexuals are not a class -  they are not exploited or physically appropriated for being homosexual. Homosexuals receive discrimination and are on the receiving end of negative ideology, but this is derivative of the patriarchal institution of compulsory heterosexuality (this is not necessarily integral to patriarchy - see Ancient Greece). The value system of compulsory heterosexuality underlies persecution, which can be life-threatening. There is a relation of oppression present, but it is not a class oppression. It is discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Following this, homosexuals experience different oppression based on their sex-class status - male or female. From what I have generally observed, lesbian women don’t emphasise their homosexuality as rendering them as a different class from the rest of women - they situate their being lesbian as embedded in their being female and understanding lesbophobia as based in patriarchy. Gay men however will tend to push more for homosexuality to be considered as a class in itself that pushes against the 'normativity’ of a heterosexist society and exalts the value of being 'deviant’, whence we get the ‘queer’ movement. This approach puts forth a normative perspective of homosexual/queer oppression that does nothing to change compulsory heterosexuality and its institutions such as marriage, but exalts lifestylism/conspicuous consumption and posits the goal of inclusion through tolerance, as contradictory as it is when you have a norm/deviant framework. Hence weird concepts like ‘homonormativity’. This was the opposite approach to that of lesbian separatists, though that wasn’t without its problems. Given all this I wouldn’t necessarily theorise this kind of discrepancy as an ‘intersection’ between homosexuality and gender, since the two aren’t exactly discrete  - the prohibition of homosexuality is derivative of a certain patriarchal logic that is further explicated with regards to sexual difference.

Anyhow, this was just a bunch of thoughts I collated together. A distinction needs to be drawn between identity and class and if intersectionality is going to be any reliable method of joining the dots, one’s basic understanding of a social category has to be rigorous in the first place.

anonymous asked:

Why do some people not like the ace/ark community ?

Because they’re assholes.

Okay no, I’m gonna try to give this a serious answer. But that’s pretty much what it boils down to.

Right. So there are basically two camps of ace hate right now.

The first is the pretty expected cishet° jerks, who hate us for the same reason they hate anyone who isn’t cishet: because we experience attraction in a way that is not the same as they do.

The second, and more unexpected recent source of hate, comes from within the MOGAI (or other acronym of your choice) community. Specifically, usually, from allo & cis gay and lesbian people. (I’m sure that they’re not the only ones, but they’re the most vocal and vitriolic of the ones I’ve seen.) And that tends to break down into a couple of distinct ideologies.

1) “Asexuals are just The Straights trying to invade our spaces.”
The ones who want to earn more sympathy points from this one will limit it to just heteroromantic aces, or to het aces and aro aces, or to cis heteroromantic aces…you get the idea. Now, I sympathize and stand in solidarity with anyone who has had a safe space for them dominated by cishet allies. That is an absolutely shitty thing to have happen, and I want to work with you to make sure it doesn’t happen in future. However, asexuality is not just a “blank” that they can project our romantic orientations onto, and asexuals and ace spectrum people are not just trying to be special. We legitimately feel attraction in a way that is fundamentally different from the way cishet people feel attraction. 

2) “Asexuals aren’t oppressed!”
Okay, laying aside my own history of violence and cruelty enacted upon me specifically because of my asexuality, and the similar experiences of other aces like me, because I hate that I’m expected to use my pain as some kind of ‘gotcha’…

There’s usually an underlying belief with this one that homophobia is the only legitimate way to be oppressed for one’s orientation. Which is simply wrong. To begin with, we could talk about the experiences of bi/pan/other MGA°° people, who experience specific kinds of shit for being attracted to multiple genders that people who are exclusively SGA°°° don’t. Or we could talk about how the sexualities of trans people, especially trans women, get policed and ridiculed specifically because of their genders (and frequently because of the genitalia they are assumed to have), which may tie in to homophobia but is also specifically related to transphobia. There are so many counterexamples to the notion that our oppression must look identical to homophobia to be valid.

If they aren’t using the “must relate back to homophobia” standard, they’re probably claiming that the only true way to be oppressed is if there are laws specifically enacted against your orientation, or if you experience violence because of your orientation. I would remind anyone who feels this way that asexual is not a protected class under US law, or the laws of any other country that I’m aware of. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against an asexual person based on their asexuality. Furthermore, legislation against asexuals is not required for asexuals to be harmed specifically for our asexuality (and if that’s not the definition of oppression, I don’t know what is). For more about this, because law is not my forte: We don’t have to be a legal movement, Employment Discrimination against Aces, Compulsory Sexuality.

3) “Asexuals just want to call themselves queer!”
I’m not even dealing with this one again. Asexual people have every right to call ourselves queer. People who use this argument need to get over themselves.

4) “Asexuals are homophobic by definition!”
Generally what people mean by this is either “I hate the split attraction model and don’t think aces should use it because it doesn’t work for me personally” or “An asexual person said something to me that was homophobic one time so now I get to hate all asexual people” or “I hate the fact that asexuals use a word to describe people that are not asexual, because I don’t see how calling allosexual people ‘non asexual’ is othering and uncomfortable, and I wasn’t around for the big debacle over calling allosexual people ‘sexual’”. Again, people that use this argument probably need to get over themselves. Split attraction doesn’t have to work for you, nobody is forcing it on you, if you don’t like it you don’t have to use it. No individual asexual is a spokesperson for the entire community. Allosexual is a word that does not imply any kind of privilege dynamic (the idea of “allosexual privilege” was brought up and subsequently pretty thoroughly rejected by the ace community two years ago, please stop). It just implies that allos feel something we don’t. Having a word for people that are not like us does not mean we think they have it better than us.

5) “Aces just want visibility (and somehow that’s a bad thing, probably because trans people)!”
Okay so as one of the trans people that gets used as a talking point in this one, I am personally offended by people trying to play one part of my identity off the other. Usually this argument goes that because negative visibility (ie: hypervisibility and how it harms trans people, trans women & trans POC especially) exists, positive visibility is something that nobody can want ever. This one is so deeply illogical I don’t even know where to start debunking it. This is usually the point in the conversation where I roll my eyes, throw my hands in the air, and walk away.

And I think that’s about enough of the “Mod Noel Blogs Angrily From Work” show for the day! Tune in next time for yet-to-be-determined nonsense!

-Noel


° Note: This blog, or at least this mod, uses cishet as short for “cisgender, heterosexual, and heteroromantic,” not as “cisgender and having at least one het orientation” as some people have tried to redefine it.

°° MGA = multi-gender attracted. In other words, someone who experiences attraction to people of more than one gender.

°°° SGA = same-gender attracted or same gender attraction.

The Legend of Heroes: Trails of Cold Steel - Localization Blog #3

Greetings and salutations, true believers!

 Trails of Cold Steel has officially launched, and I’m excited! You may well be one of the pre-order platoon, leading the vanguard, or perhaps the game is making its way to you through all the holiday postal congestion at this very moment. Either way, you’ll soon know what we know: good things come to those who wait, and here at the tail end of 2015, one of the year’s finest RPG adventures stands ready to be unfurled (though let’s be honest…with the length of the game, you’ll probably have said “Happy New Year!” before you roll those credits). Work on Trails of Cold Steel II is already well underway, so worry not – you won’t have to wait too long to see more of what happens to Rean and friends.

Brittany wrote last time about all the effort that goes into the process of voice recording, and she was right on the money – it’s a lot of work. More than I’d predicted, actually. See, this was actually a big first for me. Sure, I’d written for voice work before, but Trails of Cold Steel marked the first time I went into the studio to help supervise the recording of an English dub. The whole process – which took about 20 working days for all the voice work – was like one long course in the particulars of going from script to a finished dub – hugely instructive and informational, but also harrying with how much new info about the process I was absorbing all the time.

Keep reading