good example actually of the previous post

Alright people, let’s get something straight:

Now, I’ve both made and reblogged posts of this nature before, but earlier today I was scrolling through the ‘Recent’ tab of my Billdip search, yknow, just checking out what’s new in one of my favorite ships, and I kept coming across anti-ship posts and people complaining about incest and pedophilia and all that shit.
*Inhales* Now there are just a FEW things I’d like to add to the ‘arguments’ these posts and bloggers were making:

  1. “It’s supporting pedophilia/incest!”
    Actually no, it isn’t. Unless the author of the said ‘fan-work’ themselves DIRECTLY STATED that pedophilia or incest was fun/good, it is highly unlikely that they support it. Depicting something in a creative medium does not mean in any way that you condone it; for example, just because I joke about killing myself after a bad fanfic or maiming one of the characters in said badfic DOES NOT mean that I would do it in real life, or encourage others to do it in real life. I’ve said this line in my previous post, but I’ll say it again: LIKING FICTIONAL CHARACTERS IN A FICTIONAL RELATIONSHIP HAS ABOUT AS MUCH IMPACT ON SOMEONE’S PERSONAL/POLITICAL/RELIGIOUS VIEWS AS SOMEONE ELSE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT DOES ON THE REAL WORLD.

  2. “It doesn’t matter if it’s fiction, it can still be used to groom kids into thinking that pedophilia/incest is okay or erotic.”
    Believe it or not, I agree with this one. BUT, it still doesn’t change the fact that it’s not OUR JOB to teach naive children what is right or wrong in the world. IT’S A PARENT OR GUARDIAN’S. If a child is young or impressionable enough to think that just because there are pictures and other such media depicting pedophilia/incest it means it’s okay, then they SHOULDN’T BE ON THE INTERNET. Or their parent/guardian should monitor their child’s activity more closely. Moreover, if a child IS naive enough to think such things, then it’s not fucking Fandoms and Tumblr and Fanfiction I’m worried about, I’d be more worried about them stumbling across an ACTUAL PEDOPHILIA OR INCEST FETISH SITE! What then, people? You gonna make accounts on those forums and bitch about morality there? Good luck.

  3. “Well, I dislike it and think it’s disgusting, and I have a right to post my opinion about it on someone else’s blog.”
    Yeah, yes, absolutely, you DO have a right to an opinion! Do you have a right to whine on someone’s blog other than yours, though? NO. Do you really think that you posting a comment in the tags about how disgusting someone or something is will really change anything? It won’t. Now it’s one thing if someone said ‘I don’t support this, I personally think it’s awful, but you’re your own person and are allowed to like whatever you want.’ But even then, I STILL don’t understand why you’d say that on someone’s post. You don’t know this person, that person doesn’t know you, you clearly just implied that you want nothing to do with them or their interests, why the hell can’t you just blacklist their blog and be on your merry way? Know why ladies and gents? Because people are insecure and they need to wave their ‘opinions’ everywhere and at everything until they get recognized. If it’s not constructive criticism and is just someone who’s ‘politely’ stating that they dislike a piece of media and nothing else, they’re not worth your time.

  4. “But it’s encouraging real life pedophilia/incest.”
    *sighs* Yknow, it sucks that I’m the one who has to come out and shatter the Tumblr illusion by saying this, but halting media depictions of something dark or taboo won’t stop horrible things from happening. People, real-life pedophiles are laughing and real-life survivors are scoffing at you for thinking that censoring or filtering TUMBLR media will change ANYTHING. That’s like saying if we cease mass production and marketing of weapons, then worldwide WAR will stop! It’s stupid to think like that. Sadly it doesn’t fucking matter what people do or don’t ship, or write, or draw about, there will always be bad people in the world, and I can assure you that attempting to police stupid fandoms will not change that fact. You want to help fix the world? Go DONATE or VOLUNTEER instead of spending your time whining about what someone is doing with their blog.

  5. “If you ship <Ship Name>, then ur disgusting.”
    That’s close enough to a direct quote I saw from a post, and honestly, I can’t find much merit from someone who can’t even spell ‘YOU’RE’ correctly. And neither should any other sensible person.

And that’s pretty much all I wanted to say. Sorry for the long post, but Black Cat is known for her rants lol. Don’t let anyone tell you what you can and can’t do with your time, and don’t tell anyone that they’re a bad person because they ship this or that.

Like seriously people, it’s just stupid pairings n’ shit.

densoro  asked:

What are some good tabletop RPGs with no/limited randomness? I'm tired of my characters training for years with a sword so they can crit-fail their way through encounters T___T

In previous posts, I’ve discussed several games that limit randomness in various ways. For example, Dogs in the Vineyard uses dice only to generate resources, while actual conflict resolution takes the form of a bidding game, while both Golden Sky Stories and Chuubo’s Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine resolve tasks by using expendable resource pools to boost fixed skill ratings. However, if even that puts mechanically mediated uncertainty too close to the surface, strap yourselves in - now we’re going to get weird.

Polaris: Chivalric Tragedy at Utmost North

(Note: not to be confused with any of the other published tabletop RPGs also called Polaris - there are at least two that I know of.)

Polaris is a narrative adventure game set in an ancient, formerly utopian society at the North Pole. Your civilisation’s decadence and self-absorption has lead its rulers to dabble in forbidden sorceries, ultimately unleashing the Mistake, a monstrous sphere of blazing fire that hangs in the sky, blotting out the stars and and warping the minds of all who gaze upon it. (Modern readers may recognise that the Mistake is, in fact, our own Sun.) You play as a member of the Order of the Stars, the only remaining force that can resist the demonic armies of the Mistaken; sadly, your quest is impossible, and you’re fated to betray your people and die alone and forgotten.

Now, Polaris does have provisions for dice-based resolution, but before those rules can come into play, the outcome of the scene must be negotiated through a formalised narrative exchange involving various ritual phrases - “But It Was No Matter”, “But Only If…”, “It Shall Not Come to Pass”, and so forth. This negotiation occurs between the player and the GM - or GMs, I should say, as rather than having a single GM and multiple players, Polaris has a single player and multiple GMs!

The game is designed for exactly four participants (though it has optional rules for three or five), taking on the following roles:

  • The Heart: The traditional player role, responsible for directing whichever character is the focus of the current scene.
  • The Full Moon: Responsible for the social and hierarchical aspects of the story, including all NPCs the focus character has a primarily formal or societal relationship with, as well as all male minor NPCs.
  • The New Moon: Responsible for the interpersonal aspects of the story, including all NPCs the focus character has a primarily personal or emotional relationship with, as well as all female minor NPCs.
  • The Mistaken: The traditional GM role, responsible for directing the physical environment of the story and its antagonists.

The relationship between the Heart and the Mistaken is entirely adversarial, with the Mistaken assuming the persona of the evil bastard GM who wants player characters to suffer as much pain and humiliation as possible. In addition to their other responsibilities, the Moons function as referees and mediators between the Heart and the Mistaken, ensuring that the Mistaken plays fair when inflicting her torments. These roles can rotate from scene to scene, depending on which character is currently the focus, so you might take on all of them in the course of a single session.

The dice only hit the table when the Heart and the Mistaken reach an absolute impasse, with both making mutually exclusive narrative demands that neither is willing to compromise on, and when the Moons can find no middle ground between them. The upshot is that the potential for traditional randomised resolution is there, but it basically only ever comes into play when bizarre catastrophe is an appropriate outcome.

sketchehkimmeh replied to your post “Hey! I wanna know how transformers can share information with each…”

And in MTMTE, Rewind transferred a load of history data to Tailgate so he could be up to date with the times.

Ooh, that’s a good one! Coming in the same issue as the previous example of datalogs being sent wirelessly into Transformer brains, this is a good example of why sometimes they must need to do it via a direct link. Rewind here is shoving four million years of data into Tailgate’s brain in 11.3 seconds, and Tailgate is actually seeing and experiencing it “live,” not receiving a file to look through later. Bet you can’t do that wirelessly!

anonymous asked:

Do you honestly think as a book reader only ( i d'ont want to talk about the show because it is a mess in all levels) that jonsa has a chance of hapening, we the jonsa fondom qre being trolled everywhere , at this point i'm only shipping it out of spite :(

Let me tell you, Anon: spite can be a powerful motivator. I completely understand where you’re coming from, I often find myself experiencing the same feeling.

You’re right, we’ve been trolled for believing Jonsa has a chance of happening in canon, not only by the other ship and people who don’t really care about shipping, but also by people in the fandom itself.

We’ve been driven into a corner, bullied, ridiculed and attacked, some of us have even received rape or death threats. 

And I think that is what has brought many of us to the point of loudly and proudly declaring our opinion that Jonsa is endgame, even if we ourselves are not entirely certain of it. Perhaps some us have even lashed out or lost our patience, but can you honestly blame us for that, after everything we’ve had to endure?

But at some point it has become to sound a bit hollow, if you know what I mean. It’s become an instant response to any kind of attack and it seems to have lost some of its power.

But we are made up of such intelligent, wonderful and resilient people. Whenever we’re attacked, we use our creativity to give it a postive twist. The most recent example of that is probably the dramatic rice tag.

Now back to your actual question. Am I absolutely certain that Jonsa is endgame? In previous posts I might have said yes, because I felt compelled to defend our validity as a ship. But now I’ll give you the honest answer: I’m not sure.

And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s what leaves us the chance to write more meta and fanfic, to come up with headcanons and speculate about how it might happen and look for more evidence in the books.

Do I think Jonsa has a good chance of actually happening in the books? Yes, I do. I understand you don’t want to talk about the show, the longer I think about season 7, the more depressing it becomes. But I’ll have to point out that in my case it was season 6 which made me start shipping Jonsa.

After that I started reading meta and fanfic and I haven’t been able to come out of my Jonsa trashcan ever since :’) And at first, I didn’t really care that much about canon, I just enjoyed fanfic and fanart, edits, gifs and pretty pictures and if they were to happen in canon, that would only be a nice extra.

But I’ve read so many metas providing evidence for Jonsa that I now firmly believe in them happening in canon. There’s enough foreshadowing in the books. 

That doesn’t mean they are definitely going to be canon/endgame, but there is enough proof to theorize that it is a very strong possibility.

I know a lot of metas have been written in the last year, especially since season 7, so there’s a lot of show-based content and it’s difficult to find what you’re looking for. 

I actually think that after 4,5 years, this is still the meta to end all metas on Jon and Sansa. A Time for Wolves: The Case for Jon and Sansa.

Thank you for the question!

anonymous asked:

What would you say are the most important parts of writing the Master in general?

Depends on the incarnation, since each one is different. I know you said in general but I’m going to focus on Delgado a bit since he was the one I was talking about in my previous post.

Something I find interesting is the shift in the way Delgado is perceived, because we all think of him as the reserved, serious one, but based on interviews with Anthony Ainley that I’ve read, it seems Ainley was considered the serious one back when he was playing the role and Delgado was the fun one. And I can see why, because Delgado’s characterisation was in many ways lighter and more playful than Pratt’s, Beevers’, and Ainley’s. I think Roberts and Simm are probably the ones who changed this perception amongst fans, since Delgado does indeed seem very serious and restrained compared to them. But seeing him as only that misses an important side to his character.

I’ve read too many EU stories where the Master is just… boring. A dull, cliche villain with nothing noteworthy to offer. If that’s who he’d been in the TV show, I wouldn’t care about him at all. I mean, conceptually, the Master has never been that unique a villain, which is why it’s vital he written and acted in a compelling and entertaining way. No one likes the Master because he’s a megalomaniac trying to take over the universe—we like him because he’s fun, or because of his relationship with the Doctor, or because the actor makes it work. That’s what got me invested in him when I watched Terror of the Autons. Roger Delgado could completely sell any line he was given and keep you totally hooked. He could do sinister, he could do funny, he could do charming, and he could chew the scenery in a way that never seemed too over the top.

Unfortunately, many writers only focus on his role as an antagonist and write his whole personality around that. But the thing is… I don’t really care about that. I don’t care what his evil plan of the week is, especially when they don’t even give him entertaining plots like deadly plastic daffodils or disguising as a vicar to summon the devil. I’m not interested in watching him simply strut around gloating, serving as nothing more than an obstacle for the Doctor to overcome. But this is how he’s so often used. For example, what prompted my previous post was the recent DWM comic where he meets Twelve. There are a few good moments there, but ultimately it turned out to be rather a let-down. You could have some amazing fun with Delgado and Twelve—so much wonderful banter, little moments of friendship, a bit of angst depending on how you played it, foreshadowing for the Master’s future interactions with Twelve as Missy, etc.—and all that potential is basically wasted. The story is only interested in using him as a one-note antagonist.

The thing is, villainy isn’t actually the Master’s best/strongest trait. As an antagonist he’s rarely all that threatening. If that’s the primary aspect of him you play up, he’s going to get boring very quickly, and it will make the moments when you should play up his villainy less effective. This is something Moffat got right with Gomez, by establishing her first as a villain, but then using her as an uneasy ally (which was always a fun part of many Master stories in the Third Doctor’s era) and thus adding another layer to her characterisation, but ultimately keeping her darker nature intact with moments like her trying to make the Doctor kill Clara.

That’s what makes the lighter side to Delgado’s personality so important, because it contrasts wonderfully with his terrible actions. Not only does his charm make us like him, but it makes watching him murder people all the more unsettling. Something that bugged me in the comic was a scene where Twelve remarks, “I’m always angry in this body!” while he’s confronting the Master, and the Master replies, “Intoxicating, isn’t it?” which doesn’t really make sense, because Delgado wasn’t prone to anger at all. He has occasional flashes of anger that pass quickly rather than being constantly moody. If you study the way he interacts with his henchmen, you’ll notice he’s frequently very lenient with them when they mess up—usually just a brief “you incompetent fools!” telling off, and then he sends them off on another task. He would probably have more success if he weren’t so congenial towards them.

It’s not that he actually cares about any of them, of course, he just knows that sometimes people are more likely to do what they’re told if you ask nicely, and he does enjoy playing the smooth, dignified, impeccably polite gentleman. If you’re going to work for an incarnation of the Master (which is a bad career move that has a 99% mortality rate, so I wouldn’t advise it), go for Delgado. He’ll still kill you, but at least he’ll treat you well until then.

An important thing about Delgado is that he doesn’t have the same desperation or darkness to him that later Masters have, because at this point he hasn’t been through all the ordeals they have. He hasn’t struggled to stay alive in a decaying body or fought in the Time War or any of that. Life is still mostly a game to him, one he thoroughly enjoys playing (especially with the Doctor), so he’s not all that put out if he loses a few rounds. He’s just having a good time doing what he does. Sometimes he messes up really badly and that shakes him a bit, but as long as the Doctor’s around to fix things it’s all good, right? At this point he still genuinely believes that he can do anything, control any terrible force from the dawn of the universe that he chooses to summon, and make anyone do what he wants and see things his way, just because his will is just that strong and he’s that awesome.

I don’t think he’s even all that malicious/sadistic at this point, though there certainly is a bit of that from time to time. It’s more a case of using any means necessary to achieve his goals rather than actually wanting to hurt people (unless he has some beef with them, in which case he will definitely make them suffer). I think part of him honestly believes that his offer in Colony in Space—a benevolent co-rulership of the universe with the Doctor—is a good, feasible idea and the Doctor is being thick for not getting it. In reality, it would never actually work, and his reign would remain benevolent for maybe five minutes at most, but at this point the Master isn’t quite so set in his role as a villain (at least not in his own mind) and wants power and the Doctor’s approval more than he wants to inflict harm on anyone. Killing people is often a necessary part of his plans and he has fun with it, but he doesn’t see it as a goal in and of itself.

Anyway, I feel like I’m rambling on here, but what I’m trying to say is that when writing for Delgado, you can’t just write the “mwahahaha I’m going to take over the universe because I’m evil” side of him. You can’t write him as purely cold and serious. You need an element of fun and playfulness to his character, and you need a certain level of friendliness between him and the Doctor. You need to understand his point of view and why he actually does the things that he does.

This kind of applies to the Master as a whole. You need to incorporate the specific elements of each one’s personality, you need to keep in mind their motivations (which are more complicated than they appear and are wrapped up in a desire for power, a superiority complex, and the Master’s dynamic with the Doctor which can take on many forms ranging from competitiveness/antagonism, a desire for approval and/or the Doctor to admit they were right, and a simple need to restore their previous friendship), and above all you need to make sure they’re entertaining. They don’t necessarily have to be having fun—I love a good story where the Master suffers, or better yet a nice helping of internal conflict—but whatever they’re doing has to be compelling. If all they do in a story is act as an obstacle they are going to fall flat because, like I said, it’s not the concept of the Master that’s interesting, it’s the presentation. If you want a conceptually interesting villain, go with the Monk or the Rani instead. The Master serves an entirely different purpose.

ygquiayhe  asked:

So are there any ways that you criticize people in a tactful way? If so what are some of them? :) hahahaha thanks a lot and have a happy new year!! :)

How to Give Critiques the Right Way

1. What’s your intention?

It’s ok to give critiques if:

  • You’re helping someone improve themselves or their quality of work
  • You want to address the root cause of a problem or misunderstanding between you

Avoid it if:

  • You’re showing your superiority/their inferiority
  • You’re trying to prove you’re right
  • You’re coming from a place of anger or hurt (there are better ways to express yourself like talking through your issues instead of criticizing the other person)
  • You’re criticizing unimportant individual differences or personal choice (e.g. someone’s choice of fashion)

2. Do they want it?

If someone isn’t willing to hear you out, you’re wasting your time. They won’t follow your advice and may feel hurt or resentful towards you.

You should have a rapport before giving a critique. If not, it’s usually fine if you have their respect, or if they explicitly ask for a critique.

If you must critique to someone who is generally sensitive or defensive, make sure they’re in a good emotional state first. Let them know you can help comment on the fiction they’re writing, for example, and set up a time you’re both comfortable with.

3. Is it a good time and place?

  • It’s better to give critiques in a private environment (i.e. not in front of their friends or coworkers)
  • Make sure they’re not busy with something else or have other concerns clouding their minds

4. Is your critique constructive?

Here are the components of a constructive criticism:

  • What they’re already doing well
  • What’s not working well and why
  • How to improve it

The how is the key. It distinguishes a helpful critique someone can actually use, from a useless attack that only points out faults.

As I wrote in a previous post (Learning How to Take Criticisms Well):

There’s a difference between someone saying “wow, your drawing is bad.” (negative criticism) and “the anatomy is kinda off, fix it” (unhelpful criticism), and “hey, the balance of that character you drew is a bit off. That right leg looks like it can’t fully support the weight of the body with this pose. Try increasing the size of the thigh and shifting it to the right a bit” (constructive criticism).

[ Shop MBTI Merch ]

How does Rogue One effect the future of Star Wars, Rey’s origin [new theory, she’s not related to the Jedi nor the Sith] and Episode VIII? [Warning: SPOILERS]

First of all, I just wanted to say thank you for all your support, I can’t believe how many of you guys read my previous post, so thanks, it’s greatly appreciated :D 

I’ve been writing this up ever since I saw Rogue One, and I’ve delayed posting it, partially because of spoilers and yes, you have been warned, this is full of them. But I also wanted to be able to discuss with you all what you felt about the film. I’ll be covering areas concerning Rogue One’s relevance to Episode VIII, my new thoughts on Rey’s origin, and will also talk about the direction Disney may be heading, based on the plot points and overall risks they took with R1. 

The first thing to say is that the most important topic, as far Episode VIII is concerned, is the representation of the Force in Rogue One. In TFA, we got introduced to characters that were force-sensitive but not Jedi nor Sith [Maz Kanata and, one can argue, Kylo Ren]. Lor San Tekka was a believer in the Force, a member of the so-called Church of the Force, but he was a religious man, not a force-sensitive himself. TFA began to expand our vision of the Force, stretching it beyond just the light side and the dark side. It was not, however, the central part of the story. But in R1, the writers go much further, with the introduction of Jedha.

I like the fact that it is a moon; a clear reminder of Obi Wan’s famous line “That’s no moon” in ANH. Rather ironic, considering the fact that the Death Star’s main source of power actually originated from a moon. 

The Temple of the Whills was considered to be possibly the first Jedi temple by members of the Church of the Force, but I think, based on VII and Achto, we can rule that out. We do not explore the Temple of the Whills any further in the film as it was destroyed by the Empire, but I think this was deliberate tactic on the screenwriters part. Mainly because it was not relevant to the overall story arc of Rogue One, but also because I think we will be exploring the Whills and the real, original Jedi Temple further in Episode VIII, where it becomes more relevant. Still, they are showing us that these temples do exist, and this clearly ties into TFA and episode VIII. There is an overlap in lore going on here, despite there being completely different writers for Rogue One. These films are connected, do not be fooled.

There is also a connection here to Lor San Tekka, because the The Temple of the Whills was thought to be sacred to those of the Church of the Force. It’s important to note that at this time, even with Obi Wan, Yoda and Darth Vader still alive, the Jedi have already become part of myth and religion, which makes the idea of the Jedi still being viewed as myth in TFA slightly more believable. The Whills are even more mysterious than the Jedi. The Force is depicted more as a myth, a religion than it is an actual, physical power. In TFA, it was hinted at. In Rogue One, it is made abundantly clear. 

 “I am one with the Force, the Force is with me.”    

Baze Malbus and Chirrut Îmwe are similar to Lor San Tekka; they want to bring balance to the Force, but they are believers, not force-sensitives. They protect the Temple, but all that is left there are the crystals, which are all being taken away by the Empire. The Whills themselves are no longer there, their history is surrounded by mystery and even the Jedi don’t know much about them it seems.

But they are important. The Whills were first mentioned by George Lucas in his first draft of Star Wars [episode IV], years later in the novelisation of RotS, ten years later in the first page of novelisation of TFA and now in Rogue One. 

I think there is a connection here to TFA and this idea of the Force will continue to expand in Episode VIII. We may even see that there are actually many who believe in the Force, even if they are not force-sensitives themselves.  Perhaps we shall see that belief is just as powerful as the power of the Force itself. I think the whole story of Rogue One heavily implies this. The idea that faith is more powerful than any sort of physical power. The kyber crystals actually represent this idea and although they are used for the Death Star, they have potential to do so much more. It gives Jyn and the rest of Rogue One faith and hope. 

Kyber crystals also play a major part in the film, although surprisingly, there is little information given about them, apart from the fact that the Empire had been mining for them on Jedha and other locations. There is a lot of technical information available about them; how they were wrongly used in the Death Star, how Jedi would pick a crystal and it’s colour would change etc… But as far as Episode VIII is concerned, if the rumours about Luke constructing a lightsaber are true, we will be learning more about Kyber crystals and their history in episode VIII.

What I find particularly fascinating is the fact that the crystals are also called ‘Living Crystals’ and this ties back into TFA. The title, ‘The Force Awakens’, almost implies that the Force is a living thing, and this emphasis on the crystals further alludes to this. There is a very nice shot in Rogue One where several Rebels examine the crystals in fascination, even though they don’t understand their hidden power, or how to unlock such power. The crystals are also important when it comes to interpreting a certain Force Vision in TFA and also a specific character. 

A little like wandlore in Harry Potter, the crystals react to light side force sensitives, and naturally change to a specific colour when the said light sider constructs a lightsaber. Dark siders have to actually manipulate and bend the crystal to their will in order to construct it into a lightsaber. 

This is important for when we interpret the Force vision Rey experiences in TFA. Based on how much importance has been placed on the kyber crystals in Rogue One, I personally now believe that the saber itself is actually irrelevant. It doesn’t matter who made the lightsaber or even who used it. It is the crystal inside which is the crucial point. I believe that the crystal, which has Force energy within it, called to Rey, and the way that she reacted to it, as in when she touched the lightsaber, is unique to her and her alone. And with good reason.

Nobody else, not even Anakin, Luke or Obi Wan, has had a reaction like Rey has to the lightsaber. As I said in my previous post, the lightsaber ‘called’ to Rey. It has never done that for anyone else. And I actually think that it’s got a lot to do with the kyber crystal inside and it’s possible origins, which we currently know nothing about.

But what, for example, if it originated from Achto? We know now that Force temples were built above ground which had Kyber crystals hidden underneath.

I must confess that I don’t watch the various sw tv programmes, so my knowledge is limited, but, on a logical level, why would kyber crystals suddenly become so important in the films [specifically Rogue One] unless they had some relevance towards the future installments?

One possible theory I have is that Luke will eventually explain to Rey why she managed to force pull the lightsaber to herself. If we go even further, he may even explain why kyber crystals cause certain people to relive memories and experience visions. Or perhaps, why this particular crystal reached out to her through the Force. And when I say certain people, I do mean it.

I think that there is a very good reason why Rey is the first force sensitive, on screen, to react to a kyber crystal in the way that she did. She clearly isn’t just a force sensitive, she is something infinitely more complex and new. Although it’s completely just pure speculation, I think that she may be related to people who had a certain power over the kyber crystals - perhaps they had the potential to unlock unknown power from the crystals, something that went far beyond the lightsaber, the Deathstar, beyond what any Jedi or Sith were capable of. 

The crystals are connected to the Force, that much is clear, but I think that it goes further. The vision that Rey experiences involves her hearing the voice of Obi Wan Kenobi, and unlike the other voices, what he says is new and most importantly, present. This is not a voice of the past, but a voice speaking directly to Rey.

“The ability to defy oblivion can be achieved, but only for oneself. It was accomplished by a Shaman of the Whills. It is a state acquired through compassion, not greed."

So Qui Gon Jinn informs Yoda. He explains, according to the novelisation of Revenge of the Sith, that he learned how to become a ‘Force Ghost’, a state of eternal consciousness, from a Shaman of the Whills.

The Whills were beings who had a close connection to the Force, and it is these beings who I think might possibly be the first known Force Sensitives in the galaxy. That’s just me speculating though, and it would fit in with TFA, as I’ll explain later.

The Whills also charted the history of the galaxy, as shown at the beginning of the novelisation of TFA. Note that they are Force Sensitives but separate from the Jedi. In fact, they are referred to as ‘beings’, so we don’t even know if they are entirely human.

The Temple of the Whills in Rogue One is also called the Temple of the Kyber, which actually tells you a lot, because it means that the Whills and Kyber Crystals are closely linked together.

Obi Wan is the most featured Force Ghost in all the films, and I think, logically, Rey’s connection to the crystal [her force vision] equals to a connection to those who are in a state of eternal consciousness, because Kyber Crystals are connected to the Whills. ‘Whills’ in the earliest draft of the original SW film, according to George Lucas, was another word for the Force.

So what am I getting at here?

Again, this is really stretching it, but could it be possible that

Rey herself is actually a descendant or part of the Ancient Order of the Whills?

 She is clearly a Force-sensitive, but perhaps her origins are neither from the light side or dark side, but from something infinitely more ancient….. It would explain a lot about that Force Vision, for if she was a ‘Whill’, then it would explain why the kyber crystal inside Anakin’s lightsaber called out to her, in a way that it hasn’t for any other Force Sensitive in the current films.

Perhaps she has the power to unlock other Force abilities from the crystals, and this is what Luke and herself are discovering, according to the rumours about some scenes in Episode VIII.

And as far as Kylo Ren is concerned? What if the real reason he wanted to find the map was not because he wanted to confront his old mentor, but because he too was searching for the First Jedi Temple, something Snoke has no interest in? What if he was after Kyber Crystals? We know that he only managed to get a cracked, damaged one. And what if the ‘First Jedi Temple’ which I think we can assume is Achto, is actually a reference to the Whills themselves?  

Rogue One expanded the universe of SW, showing that things were not as black and white as we assumed. The Rebels were not exactly goody two shoes, and we were introduced to characters who had their own agendas. We even got another traitor, this time in the form of Bodhi Rook. Cassian Andor has rather questionable morals and I think it’s interesting to compare him to Finn, who defected because he didn’t want to kill for the First Order. If the Resistance is to become more like how the Rebels are depicted in R1, then I think Finn must reach a point where he starts to feel conflict over the fact that the Resistance does terrible things as well, and that it is hard to find complete political correctness in any organization. It could also lay down background for why the First Order is so opposed to the Resistance and the New Republic. This of course relates back to Adam Driver’s recent analysis of TFA, comparing the Resistance and the First Order to two opposing, terrorist groups, both rather extremist in their actions. R1 only further confirms this I think, and if Laura Dern’s character is going to be as morally ambiguous and problematic for Leia as rumours have circulated, then I think we could possible see  a ‘Winter Soldier’ type of situation, where Poe, much like Cassian, has been given his own set of personal orders that the others of his team don’t know about. Heck, it might even be Finn himself, although I see him as a very Captain America-like figure, at least where his morals and beliefs are concerned. He has moral integrity, but also an incredibly strong sense of honour. The fact that Hux’s brainwashing program on him didn’t work proves this. In many ways Finn is the very opposite of Cassian, who was a spy, and that makes for interesting narrative since they are both, technically, on the same side. 

And then there’s of course the elephant in the room, which is that everyone dies.

Now I’m not suggesting that everyone in TFA is going to die, but it is interesting that a lot of so called good guys in Rogue One have checkered pasts and over the course of the film, they have to come to terms with that and accept each other for who they truly are. And it is only when they do so, that they understand that there is something bigger than them at work. The Force greatly implies this. The only reason Rogue One succeeds is because of the fact that they are, in fact, rogues. 

They go against the establishment, which, in this case, means the Rebel Alliance, and act on their own set of morals, as Cassian shows when he says that he wants to help Jyn in the third act of the film. This is actually a rather Luke Skywalker like thing to do, as Luke also went against the advice of his mentors, and saved his friends and, eventually, saved, not killed, his father. 

Rogue One is a much more adult movie than TFA, and for one very simple reason. The characters in R1 are adults with history, unlike the new characters in TFA who I would say are more like young adults. Hence the themes that are covered are more complex and their conflicts are more over a sense of world-weariness, something which we could connect to Han Solo.

I think that if Disney is willing to go this far with R1, there’s nothing to suggest that Rian Johnson won’t be allowed to do the same for the remaining two episodes of the new trilogy. And I’m pretty convinced that it’s going to be about the Whills.

It’s also rather telling that the Guardians of the Whills get their own theme in Rogue One. The first three notes of it’s theme are exactly the same as those of Across the Stars. Take from that what you will.

And it’s the last track on the soundtrack. But perhaps I’m just pushing it a bit too far now :P

how to study: pathology

the preclinical pathology element is typically quite small in the UK, but it’s a topic that it’s important to have a really solid knowledge base in for the clinical years.

why learn pathology?

  • to get basic knowledge of how microscopes work, how different substances are tested for, and how a lab is important in diagnostic veterinary medicine
  • to enhance your preclinical learning with microscopic images of organs and structures as well as gross anatomy
  • to know common pathological cases before clinical rotations start
  • to appreciate how disease can cause clinical signs on the microscopic and gross level 

what are the problems with studying pathology?

  • lab hours. you’ll almost certainly never get enough time in the lab with a specific specimen, and it’s sometimes difficult to really understand things under time pressure. 
  • lack of context. in the preclinical years, it often feels like you learn the microscopic pathology of something (eg. coccidiosis in chickens) without seeing how disease affects the whole animal.
  • variety. this is the biggie. no two pathological specimens, or cadavers, will look the same. sure, patterns are shared, but it can be difficult to elucidate the cause of disease when it’s surrounded by post-mortem changes, regular wear-and-tear, or even other diseases. 

what are some solutions and tips?

  • google images is your best friend. search for the pathology, microscopy, or disease you’re looking for and you’ll inevitably find hundreds of examples. always question what you’re seeing, as this helps to develop your identification skills and critical thinking. 
  • if in doubt, ask a lecturer. most, especially specialist pathologists, will most likely be happy to help with your problems, even if you feel like the question is stupid or small. 
  • some institutions have resources where microscopy slides are put on their VLE for students to access. use this if you can, for both normal and abnormal anatomy. 
  • make up stupid nicknames, rhymes, songs, whatever. i had a little song and dance routine to help myself remember the postmortem changes (and, if this blog ever gets to a million followers, i’ll post a performance of it - ha!), and there are lots of other monikers out there (for example: ‘chicken-fat and redcurrant jelly’ for post-mortem clotted blood, or the five cardinal signs of inflammation - SLIPR). 
  • comparison always helps. view normal and abnormal histology side-by-side, make sure you know the normal anatomy/colour/texture/size of the main organs (especially the heart and liver), and make comparison tables (eg. normal liver vs. liver with acute Fasciola hepatica - deep red and firm vs. pale and haemorrhagic). 
  • listen in your intro to microscopy classes! to this day, i don’t know how to do an oil immersion and i’m too scared to ask, but it can be more basic than that. learning the basics of adjusting the aperture, lens, and zoom will save you time and energy. 
  • pathology isn’t clear-cut or exhaustive - in practice, you’ll often be presented with things you’ve never seen before. don’t try to learn it all - as with parasites, learn the principles first. 
  • learn the pathology of a system as you’re studying it. this is how i did most of my revision this year and it really helped with the lack of context mentioned above. for example, as i went through cardiovascular physiology, i placed my revision into the context of heart failure and how it can manifest, and this actually helped with both the system revision and the pathology, as both were placed in context. 

the next in this series will be looking at virology. the previous post on parasites can be seen here. good luck!

theheartofapatriot  asked:

"Liberty that does not have a clear inescapable downside is not real liberty." I adore this quote. And because so many people see liberty or freedom as some utopian idea, I would love if you could expand on it and explain to people why this is and why freedom isn't all rainbow and butterflies as some people might frame it to be.

Some people think they believe that liberty is good, when what they actually believe in is simply labeling every good that a human being might experience  as “liberty”. Let us look at two examples of this.  As I have mentioned in previous posts, certain individuals on the Left will sometimes attempt to make the argument that the poor don’t actually have liberty. Thus they are equating liberty with money,  or material means. It is obviously a complete departure from the traditional understanding of liberty according to which the Greek author Aesop once declared “it is better to starve free than to be a fat slave”. Material well being, the quote suggests, is definitely a good, but it is a good that is both separate from, and inferior to liberty itself. The founding fathers in pledging their lives and fortunes in their rebellion against the British indicated the exact same understanding of liberty.

The acquisition of any truly beneficial thing will expand the breadth of one’s life, but this does not mean that every beneficial thing equals liberty . To blur the line between those beneficial things that are not liberty, and  liberty itself is to destroy all understanding of a what a free society means. In modern Europe the classical notion of Natural Rights (which was merely open space within which the individual can  act)  has been replaced by “human rights”, which are benefits  and privileges that all men are supposedly owed. And the idea is that unless human beings possess those things they are not truly “free”.  The free privileges granted by a dictator to his people may also be advantageous to them, but they are not liberty.

 Freedom infact is not actually beneficial, rather it is that out of which beneficial things can be produced. Liberty by its very nature always has just as much of a chance of producing the negative as the positive. If it does not, then it is not liberty. But because liberty, through the potency of the free market, allows  countless positives to be both discovered and retained, those positives   accumulate over time and significantly reduce the  negatives within society as a whole. Yet the world remains a deeply troubled place which is why Free Enterprise philosophy is not utopian.

Examples of crappy things that Gon’s friends did to him during the CA arc.

Since I mentioned it somewhat vaguely in my previous post, I felt I should expand on it a bit. People love to talk about the ways Gon was shitty to his friends during the CA arc, but let’s discuss how they weren’t exactly the most thoughtful of people, either.

Exhibit A: Something else that I’ve actually never seen the fandom address was how Killua used Gon’s feelings about his (presumably-murdered) father figure as a way to manipulate/control him. Even if Killua had good intentions in mind (he did), it was a really shitty thing to do to his friend, who he knew was already at the point of mentally-breaking because of it.

I mean, yeah, Gon was selfish because he said that mean line to Killua when Killua was trying to prevent him from killing Pitou…because it’s not like Pitou would have, without hesitation, killed them if it had the chance, right?…but THIS was stuff that really bothered me (even moreso because people found it “funny”). I know this line was likely written off as humor, but they all knew that Kite’s name was an extreme emotional trigger for Gon, yet they still had no problem with using him against Gon–who again, is a distraught and emotionally-unstable 14-year old boy.

(Furthermore, I think the most disturbing part of it is that it is strongly implied that Killua knew that Kite was dead already, while he knew Gon was still holding on to blind/delusional faith that Kite was alive, yet he still chose to do this. And he knew that when the illusion would finally break, Gon would be left irreparably-devastated.)

Exhibit B: I think people fault Gon again for losing control and almost killing Morel in this scene, but remember–again, they deliberately used Kite as a way to manipulate Gon into “proving his worth” as a team member, at the cost of severely emotionally-triggering him.

Imo, it’s comparable to how, during the Hunter exam arc, the prisoner in the tower–unknowingly on his part, which made his actions actually more excusable than Morel’s–used the Spider tattoo/his clan’s massacre to upset Kurapika to the point of almost beating him to death. Except Gon didn’t–and immediately after, he even apologized profusely for losing control, even though Morel had purposefully coerced him into doing so, possibly traumatizing Gon all over again.

And remember–Gon apologized to both Killua and Morel.

(These are the ones I thought of off the top of my head and have the energy to expend on–feel free to add to, or dispute, anything here.)

anonymous asked:

I think commissions is a good idea ^__^ your art is lovely and should be more than 2 dollars

// WAah thank you anon..// and I read replies on my previous text post earlier too! (probably going to go drop thanks to those people later as well) Those kindness goes a long way.

AHHH yes, that’s true!! 2 dollars is too little..; not just for me, but I’d probably be setting a really bad example if I actually did take commissions for 2 dollars because that’s way below minimum wage and there are people who depend on art to make a living (I’m not sure if I am on the same ground as them to make a comparison, but I’m aware I shouldn’t get paid below minimum wage, probably) there was a notion going around twitter that the idea of “starving artist” is really toxic for those who work in the field.. I’m probably taking this a lil far but yeah..;v; people should at least get paid as much as the time they’ve spent on doing something PLUS rewarded their skills and abilities.

However, I’ve been both a customer and a creator right.. (more of a customer than a creator when it comes to buying art I guess) and I’ve learned that liking something and liking it enough to spend money on something are not something that fully intercept each other. To add, sometimes you’d like to buy and support but your conditions don’t match up (which is the case with me when a lot of my artist friends open commissions!!) and I’m kind of chicken to spend money all the time.. spending 2-3 dollars at once isn’t that pressuring, but when the price goes over $20 I try to balance the pros and cons and my current state. So I want to find a price that people wouldn’t feel so nervous AND something I would feel happy about receiving (which is so hard o<-<)

This got long, but thank you for telling me you feel my art is worth more than just 2 dollars!! ;v;// I’ve thought about the pricing if I really did take one and I wouldn’t mind getting paid 2-3 dollars for sketch like this ↓

but for a painting like this would ;v; I.. don’t think I will be able to make the pricing like that.. maybe at least 10 dollars and akakfhukhhlk the more I think of it I’m not that good!! SC REAM S being confident is one thing but being self-conscious is another.

UHHH If you’re interested on commissioning me to draw something!!!! please message me via the messaging system, I’m open to talk..I’ll spend it all on buying the program and post the receipt here!! ‘v’// and the game I make will be free (GOSH I REALLY NEED TO MAKE ONE if I do this) so.. it might be a win-win if you want to play? no pressure on you though. I’ll be making it anyway and it’s just a matter of how much time it’d take to make one! I wish you a nice day, anon..! Sorry for just blurting out a lot of things I’ve thought of over the night..!//

Fandom and Positivity

Here are some important things:

Thing One: Positivity in fandom is such an important thing to me. You want to yell from the rooftops about how much you love your favourite character? About how your favourite show saved your life? Dude, I am right there with you. And if someone comes along and harshes your squee or tells you that you can’t like a thing? You let me know and I’ll whip out the rolled-up newspaper to give ‘em a bop on the nose.

Thing Two: Sometimes posts under the banner of “positivity” actually wind up making vulnerable fans feel more unwelcome in fandom. An example: “I love the new female characters in season 12 of RvB!” is an awesome statement, and I will totally back you up on that and write a bajillion fics featuring them. On the other hand: “I don’t get why people are complaining, the female characters in season 12 of RvB are written way better than in previous seasons” is a bit more of a jerk statement, because it’s using positivity (good female characters!) to shout down/be dismissive of the folks who think “female characters exist” is a bit of a low bar for celebration, or were maybe uncomfortable with the bad-drivers/lol-butts/relegated-to-the-background stuff in the show this season.

Basically, it’s understandable to feel uncomfortable if some folks come up and say “our favorite show did something hurtful”. And if you want to double-up on your positivity in response to that, go for it! By all means, do something fun: start an appreciation week for your fave character, write a fic, start an RP. Nobody’s saying you’ve even got to acknowledge the negative sides to your favorite show.

But you’ve definitely gotta avoid knee-jerk attacks on other fans, especially if your only message is “I WASN’T OFFENDED SO YOU SHOULDN’T BE EITHER.”

What it boils down to: fandom seems to have a really weird definition of the word “hate”. Someone saying, “I don’t like it when X makes rape jokes” isn’t hating on X; if anything, they’re responding to X’s hate that’s being directed at them. On the other hand, someone saying, “I don’t like Y because she’s such a [gendered slur]” is definitely hating on that character–there’s no self-defense going on there at all, they’re just being nasty and misogynistic. That’s an important distinction. The latter might warrant a defensive post from fans of Y. The former definitely doesn’t–fans of X should probably stay out of it.

Basically: I make my grumpy-posts when fans are being attacked in some way–either directly (“fans who hate on X need to stop watching the show!”) or indirectly (using slurs to describe characters that a lot of fans hear directed at them on a regular basis). I never do it to harsh someone’s squee or to hate on a character or fan I dislike. I rarely even do it when it’s just a one-time offender–if someone makes a crappy post, more often than not I’ll just scroll on by and maybe think about unfollowing.

But when it’s someone who makes the same mistakes again and again, or someone who has a lot of sway in fandom, or if it’s just a conversation we’ve had a billion times before, I’ll make a post about it. And if I mention another fan by name you’d better believe it’s because a lot of folks have made it known to me that they’re being hurt by that person.

Most times, the hurt is unintentional and can be cleared up with a minimum of fuss, and we can all get back to our positive happy place. But just, y'know, try to be aware of the social dynamics and context at play here: if you’re making a positive post about your favorite show, are you making it in order to provoke the folks who were hurt by that show? Have you incorrectly labelled frustrated self-defense as an attack on your faves? Are you more focused on protecting creators from fans than vice-versa?

It’s hard to be diplomatic. I get that. A lot of us hang out online so much in part because we’re maybe a little inept in the social department. But it’s very, very easy to check yourself every now and then and ask whether what you’re posting is going to be kind and mindful of more vulnerable fans. That’s the priority.

Swan Queen: Unhealthy Ship?

There are many anti-Swan Queeners out there that say that SQ believes, “Regina is so healthy for Emma.” I personally believe that they are good for one another, supporting each other in saving themselves from the darkness within them, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have their unhealthy moments, as well. I believe, and I respect if others believe otherwise, that Regina is better suited for Emma than Hook. The support I have for this argument is that Regina tries to get Emma to break down her own walls, whereas Hook stated, “I liked your walls. I liked being the one to break them down.”

In the well scene between Emma and Regina in 5x08, Regina uses the dagger to help Emma break down the walls she has built up for herself, pleading to her, “You just have to be brave enough to knock down all those walls you are hiding behind.” The antis use this scene to support their claims of how unhealthy their relationship is. They state that ‘Regina controls Emma clearly against her will’, which is not completely accurate. In the scene, Regina also states, “The dagger can make you look, but you have to choose to see.” While she may sound demanding, the words she uses in the scene clearly give Emma a choice in the matter, debunking the statement that it was ‘clearly against Emma’s will’.

In the following scene, Emma is approached by Hook and she asks him, referring to the dagger, “Regina was going to use it on me, why not you?” To which Hook responds, “What she did was wrong.” Emma follows his statement by saying that Regina was right in having used the dagger on her. It has already been canon that Regina and Emma understand each other in a deeper level, Emma having admitted the fact in 4x05 and Regina in 5x08. The first statement where Emma asks Hook ‘why not you’ could also be taken as “Why was Regina the one who thought to use the dagger to help me, not you?” A common theme in this show is that the world isn’t always black and white, right and wrong. There are many gray areas, as well. This is a good example of that.

Aside from the fact that Regina was using the dagger with Emma’s best interest in mind, Hook’s first use of the dagger was mere seconds after Emma became the Dark One. He was the first to grab at the weapon and he instantly called out summoning her with, “Dark One, appear!” He had no idea what had happened to Emma and if it were safe for her to return to Storybrooke, which isn’t really putting her best interest in mind. Grant it, he was worried about her but that still doesn’t excuse the fact he immediately thought controlling her was the best way to get her back to them.

To add to this, I believe that Hook and Emma being together brings out the worst in both parties. An example of this would be their first date where Hook believes his hand is making him revert to his previous self, but it was actually him all along. Another example of this with Hook is when he jumped off the top of a building to get Emma’s attention, which is not a good message to send to the viewers. By doing this, he forces her to confront him.

As for Emma, she selfishly turns Hook into the thing he spent most of his life trying to get rid of: the Dark One. I made a previous post about this here, relating this event with Emma sacrificing herself for Regina’s happiness. In summary, both had the same result but for different reasons, therefore making the claimed ‘double standard’ against Swan Queen obsolete.

Emma has constantly supported Regina throughout her redemption arc: believing her when she said she didn’t cast Zelena’s curse, helping in Operation Mongoose, saving Robin Hood while risking turning darker, and even sacrificing herself to the darkness for her happy ending. They are constantly there to help each other when needing a push in the right direction, which is a quality of a healthy relationship.

If you don’t see the point I am trying to make here, please respond with your own support as to why you disagree, but please keep it polite. After all, when the day is done and over with, we are all part of the same fandom: Once Upon a Time. I know it is a lot to ask, but it would be nice if we could all support one another’s beliefs and defend our own without getting overly offensive towards another ship.