perceival

idk how the demographic that the gaming industry has pandered to the absolute most for its entire existence (i.e. straight white males) can possibly accuse people who want to see lgbt and poc of forcing companies to “pander” to them just bc companies are starting to make their games diverse

like god forbid a business market towards its audience

god forbid you tell 99% of straight white male gamers that they’re not the overwhelming majority they think they are

how entitled do you have to be to literally perceive not getting everything for once to be an injustice

how stupid are you when you literally admit to giving absolutely zero shits about a game’s lore and storyline, but then get up in arms when devs say some characters will be lgbt (things that do not affect the game in any way)

how selfish are you when you think that saying “why does it matter?” to people who want lgbt and poc characters is fair, just because you, personally, do not care. get out of here with that shit. “why does it matter?” is the new face of homophobia and racism and other such senselessness in the gaming community. quit faking neutrality with your overly aggressive “not caring”. you just want us to shut up, and to conform to your opinions.

In case it had never occurred to someone why videogames might appeal to people with depression…..part of depression is a sort of learned helplessness where one’s agency is constantly being frustrated by not being able to meet goals or expectations (real or perceived, reasonable or unreasonable) or never seeing a tangible result or payoff for hard work. This is part of why taking care of plants or animals can sometimes help with depression–it provides a measurable, physical effect and a sense of progress (keeping it alive and growing). Depression is “nothing I do makes any difference, so why bother?” Have you ever leveled up in a videogame? Sometimes a beam of light shoots out of you, an announcer congratulates you, you get items and rewards and unlockables. In short, it provides a small but tangible payoff as a result of something you did. Video games are designed to allow you to set goals and then meet them. And sometimes you get to ride a dragon while doing it. It’s not hard to see the appeal for someone who doesn’t feel like they can accomplish anything.

Silence as a dialogue option is used to great effect in The Wolf Among Us, as every character typically perceives the main character of Bigby Wolf as some level of threat. Rather than just remaining distant during a conversation, Bigby takes on a more threatening manner when he doesn’t say anything. In addition, characters will often fill the silence with wave after wave of excuses or misdirection, telling the player plenty without ever having to utter a peep.

Something to remember: People will hate a series because of a ship. Just saying. They really will.

“I don’t hate it because my ship didn’t happen. I hate it because–”

No. A ship is probably behind it. It makes them have a bitter disposition and they pick apart other things to rationalize the fact they are mad or sad over their ship. Even subconsciously. Because it’s hard to like a series where you feel that glaring thing that doesn’t fit in your perceived range of a “good.” Every. Single. Fandom. Does this. It’s like people who say “I don’t gossip.” You know that shit ain’t true. Everybody gossips.

“Inconsistent” tends to mean character development btw. People grow.

So, before you guys start getting worried over Empire of Storms, read it.

Also, a thing to note: Sarah J. Maas probably knew very well she was going to get hate. Very well, I’m sure she knew. She was prepared and she is a Queen. Throw her your love anyway though.

Hoops: As delicate and ephemeral as soap bubbles, these gentle apparitions seemed to wink in and out of existence at a moments notice.  While not directly correlated to our physical stimulus, their motions did seem to follow a consistent internal logic.  While it is dryness that can destroy a soap bubble (not sharpness as is often misunderstood), Hoops seemed highly vulnerable to sound, but not those perceived at a human level.  Subsonic sound is lethal to these creatures, but what their precise perception of the world is remains unclear, their existence is so short within the darkening wood it is unclear why they may come into being in the first place.

Buddha confirmed the presence of non-human beings in the world, the invisible usual eye. The existence of these creatures has been confirmed in many years gifted meditators, to develop the necessary skills to take them. Most Buddhists, who are unable to verify the existence of spirits on personal experience, take the question of their existence for granted. Other Buddhists, with a skeptical turn of mind, do not express opinions on the subject. Buddhist teachers believe that more important than the awakening of faith in the existence of invisible beings, is to awaken the wise attitudes towards them. The Buddha taught that all beings without exception are our fellow wanderings in the worlds of birth and death, and therefore they should not be objects of worship and should not bribe offerings made to them. Buddhists learn to relate to non-human beings with respect and kindness. In doing so, they become loved these creatures and are exempt from the risk posed by them. And even in cases where the phenomenon perceived as spirits, are merely the product of the activities of the human subconscious, this friendly attitude is the most soothing.

Originally posted by hollycem

anonymous asked:

What do you think keith would be insecure about

OK NOW that im at my laptop i will answer:

  • definitely talking about his feelings. it’s hard for him to word his thoughts or string them together and have them come across as how he intended them to. he’s afraid he’ll come off as too harsh or too blunt. people are hard to work with because he doesn’t know how they’ll react. he’s fine with himself, he knows his feelings, his emotions, but other people don’t know and he doesn’t know other people.
  • i guess in a way, his image. not how he physically looks, but how others perceive him. at the garrison, they slapped “the best pilot of his generation” on him. well it is true, but keith hates how these titles hold him up to some standard that he didn’t ask for in the first place. he slips up once and they’re critical. he could care less about 
  • he’s kind of unsure about how to physically show affection. he’s used to being closed off, arms crossed. when he and lance first start dating, keith doesn’t know how to show his feelings. he’s not good at talking so that’s out of the picture. so he just, tries with small gestures. brushing hands as they walk side by side, resting his chin on lance’s shoulder as he looks over to see what he’s doing. he’s not sure if any grander signs of affection will be too much. but when it comes down to it, he will always hug lance when he needs it.
5

“Ted Kord had no powers, kid. He was always "overpowered.” But he always won. I saw him mop the floor with guys who ate stars. Because he was smarter. He was smarter than Bats, although nobody ever noticed.”
- Guy Gardner, Blue Beetle (2006) #14

One of the things i love so much about superhero comics is the contrast between how people perceive all the heroes and how they really are. I mean, pre-flashpoint, Jaime practically worshipped Ted Kord. All the other heroes kept telling him he died valiantly, and that he was one of the most brilliant and bravest men on earth despite not having powers and Jaime was doing his best to live up to the legacy. However, Jaime never met Ted and as Booster Gold once pointed out, the other heroes weren’t very objective and honest on the matter. In fact, most of them thought he was joke and were just feeling guilty about his death. So Jaime imagined Ted as this guy who always had the perfect solution when, let’s face it, he was partially responsible for 30% of the shit the JLI went through.

And then, in Rebirth, Jaime sounds like he just really wants to give Ted - who he admired so much in another lifetime - a punch in the face.

Anywho, idk why but i find this kinda hilarious. And cute. Ted is just one of these characters whose death almost had more impact on the DCU than his life and whose reputation has always been very exaggerated either negatively or positively. It’s nice to have Jaime meet the actual guy instead of building a mental shrine in his memory. Talk about fantasies smashed to pieces xD

(From Blue Beetle (2006) #35, 36, Justigue League: Generation Lost #3, 19, 24 and Blue Beetle: Rebirth)

anonymous asked:

so really quick, im a science major sort of writing a paper on what science means and i got a bit philosophical about it and just getting perspective here and wondering, so if i told you science was more "made up" and how science is more of an agreed upon idea of ‘facts’ based on what we think we perceive and its more based on what we can disprove vs really prove. and knowledge is arbitrary of course and constantly changing. what would you say? would you agre that science stems from philosophy?

Personally, from my perspective and understanding of human history, we, our species, created this thing called ‘philosophy’ AND this tool kit we call ‘science’. Where these two ‘fields of study’ sort of part ways is that science becomes dispersed and diversified into ever more refined questions and subsets of questions which are methodically and meticulously researched by human beings whom have respectively endured a relentless amount of their lives working toward an answer to said question. 

Wherever the evidence leads - be it unfolding into yet another subset of better questions, a dead end (until better questions are asked or research elsewhere within or outside their field leads to an answer or question that assists with pushing the research in stalemate/standstill further) or illuminating for us research we must pursue when superior technology becomes available - that’s where it leads, and there are not absolute truths on this journey.

If we were using the field of Anthropology for example, and one of the outcomes (but not limited to the outcomes I put forth) results, then at that point in time in that particular field - which may influence other fields with said research as well - we must accept this and take into account all evidence with consideration to all ongoing research and factor that into whatever we speak on when it comes to “philosophically speaking” of any/all topics of discussion with respect to the present state of knowledge. 

It becomes muddy at this point though, because incorporating theoretical and quantum research are frontier fields that thrive on uncertainty. So, when it comes to philosophy, one cannot be too deterministic about anything. However, in science, we have to be deterministic based on what the evidences bears out, lest new evidence presents itself to advise or alter something that we must consider and incorporate into our updated model of understanding. 

I believe philosophy can pull us back from being “too close to the project” as it were, and analyze the scope of our existence in a wider view frame, just as art can put things into a different perspective; but both philosophy and art are susceptible to the creative mind of the artist (which is a wonderland all to itself because every mind is different, molded by different experiences, genetics, etc.) or the scientific literacy of the philosopher. Art doesn’t need to adhere to a scientific license of any kind; it’s organic, original, and TBD by the creator and the viewer. Philosophy leans on every aspect of our understanding in order to pull from the very pinnacle of our progress, the faults of our past, and our curiosity meticulously curated into ‘fields’, ‘subjects’, and the like. No matter what realm of our existence and experience philosophy delves, all evidence must be considered. 

Philosophy and science both have anchors tied to their quest to understand; shackled to the space and time that bind us as prisoners of the present moment. The scientific pursuit is one of ever-receding and/or increasing horizons, fettered by risk, funding, politics, curiosity, and time. Philosophy, on the other hand, risks nothing. It’s merely taking into account how science informs us about our (as Bill Nye refers to it) “place in space” from every approachable angle, then surmising until further evidence comes in to change said perspective. But it risks nothing. It’s a continued thought experiment on the existence of existence.

Where philosophy really gets tripped up is amidst the field of neuroscience which has now divulged into various subsets because we are now making more progress than ever in human history while on the cusp of understanding consciousness. I find it quite amusing that early (ancient) philosophers guided religious ideology due to the simplified framework of how most “answers” were derived. Now, with our knowledge of how the brain processes information, the way we do science is not in question, because we know we do things extremely slow, thus, super/quantum computers will assist us on that front. And no matter where human beings roam – whether here to Alpha Centauri – philosophy will still be prevalent amongst our society as a means to provide moral/ethical insight and support from varying perspectives, along with hindsight/foresight perhaps not immediately considered.

Conclusion? Without science to influence our collective knowledge and perceived understanding, there would be no foundation with which to support philosophy beyond scientifically illiterate men and women sitting around thinking about things with no evidence to support their claims/opinions. And without philosophy becoming more mature, committed to the reality for which nature presents herself through the lens and pursuits of scientific inquiry, researchers of the past/present/future may not have considered certain questions to be asked, pushed forward with their original intent, or halted their research for one reason or the other. Perhaps philosophy even influenced some in the past or more in the future to reconsider whichever field of study they were or will be pursuing, altering their course entirely? 

Before we were consciously aware we were doing science, we were experimenting curiously, for better or worse, doing science. At the same time, we were asking questions about the relationship we have or were developing about our environment, our relationship tribe/species, and we have every reason to believe that philosophy pushed us beyond the horizon, over the next hill, or into darker waters. 

Science or Philosophy first? In my view, perhaps they were two heads of the same body all along. 

Hope this helps somewhat! Stay curious, my friend. 


Consider the following: Bill Nye on Philosophy, Science || Where Philosophy Meets Science || Has Science Killed Philosophy? || Science and Philosophy

A Wrong Assumption - Prompt #15 Fire

Title: A Wrong Assumption

Author: @sagittaria-sagittifolia

Rating: M (explicit language & mention of sexual acts)

AN: 1) I don’t own the Hunger Games or any of it’s characters. They belong to Suzanne Collins

2) I had a list of AU ideas that I used for this prompt (“We`re sitting in a food court and I can see you starting at me so what´s your fucking deal-wait are you drawing me?”) and the general association of fire with passion and lust. Hope you like it.

3) Only checked it once, no beta and could only work on it late or in my breaks. So sorry for all mistakes.


Katniss looks for the perceived 100th time on the watch at her wrist. Her right foot is tapping on the floor in a staccato beat. Her whole demeanor radiates ‘annoyance’.

The tapping of her foot gets faster and louder. Her wrist flicks again, looking down at her watch.

25 minutes late! Where the hell are you Primrose?

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

I saw you reblogged some Stan twins fanart in relation to the SU episode so here's just a thought: Mabel watching Steven Universe and that song becoming her anthem of helping her grunkles with their respective traumas and perceived failures.

Gosh I got emotional about it again. Even better both Mabel AND Dipper singing to the Stans because they have the “stable fusion” so to speak, and have learned to trust and communicate with each other. After what Dipper and Mabel learned that summer together, I think it would be powerful and meaningful to pass the knowledge to their Grunkles. (note: this is not a crystal pines au post, please don’t tag it).

Fiete loved this time of year, as much as he often missed being around his family, he was far to invested in his school work to stay away for long.  While he may not have been jumping off the walls, or screaming with glee there was a bounce to the boy’s step as he walked. He paused, stopping in front of a painting on one of the walls staring intently at it. “Has this always been here? It looks new.” He hummed, carefully running a finger over the gold frame. Fiete had an excellent memory, and something about this one just seemed unknown to him. “Perhaps it has just been polished recently.” He mused absentmindedly, tilting his head slightly as though that would help him understand the contents of the painting better. When all it really did was make things sideways.

 “What do you think it means? I read a book over the summer about how each person perceives things based on their own emotions and experiences. It’s fascinating really, how two people can look at the same thing and come to complete different answers.”  He rattled off, not really looking at the person he was speaking too but entranced by the work in front of him.

I was super butch as a kid which led to all sorts of trauma and I started trying to look more feminine as I went through puberty and was forced to confront the fact that That Woman was what was expected of me, and I was a woman in society and I was perceived to be mentally healthy when I was finally Her. but I’ve felt so weird and ostracized from my own humanity while being that woman. There was a period of time where I only wore dresses for years because they were clothes I looked nice and feminine in that I didn’t have to think about. I was depressed for years and didn’t know why because women are still discouraged from wearing pants

Me: perceiving actual historical figures like they’re just fun 2 dimensional characters is incredibly problematic and can lead to warped perception of their impact on society

 Also me: *shitposts about John Quincy Adams*

sautisaa  asked:

I apologise for bombarding you with so many questions...but what's the science behind Déjà Vu?

Not a problem! Keep them coming!

Basically, we don’t know 100% for sure, but the theories so far suggest that there are two portions for how we process sensations: we perceive it and we make sense of the experience, and then we recall memories about it, even immediately after. Then, sometimes it will happen that the memory portion happens before your brain finished processing the experience, and so you remember seeing something before you recognize the current experience.

Did you ever see such a glorious sunset, Pompey?”
“Never, and it rests on your head like a halo, fair lady,” said a deep, manly voice behind her.
Turning in her saddle Elizabeth saw a handsome, fair, slender young man in the uniform of Washington’s Guards.  Removing his hat he said, as he bowed low in his saddle:
“If the apparition of loveliness my eyes behold is not a sweet dream of unreality, will she deign to tell me the way to General Schuyler’s mansion?”
“The apparition of loveliness as you designate her is a mere creature of flesh and blood,” replied Elizabeth mockingly, and with a merry laugh.  “And pray who is my father’s visitor, who desires to see him now?”
“Your ladyship’s most humble servant,” replied Hamilton with another flourish of his cocked hat. 
“Ah, I perceive that your colors indicate that you are attached to General Washington’s staff.  As I am on my way home, I shall be glad to show you the way to my father’s house and extend welcome in his name.”
“General Schuyler’s name stands for loyalty to our cause and hospitality to all,” replied Hamilton.  “I gladly avail myself of your kindness, this happy chance, which has sent an angel to guide me to paradise.”
“Pray forebear, sir,” said Elizabeth blushing.  “I am a simple country maid, unused to such flattering words which smack of a court more than our republican simplicity enjoins.”
Hamilton turned red and to cover his embarrassment added: “Pardon me if my speech has been too bold.
—  One day I’ll rank the meet-cutes in these books.  My favorite is still Romance on the Hudson, but this is cute.

“You are the observer who watches your emotions as they push, pull and stretch you. The beauty inside of you is unmovable. Your deepest and most truthful self does not care about trends, times, struggles, losses or worries. Your deepest self is free from the world’s petty, made-up demands, judgments and expectations. You love yourself and you are happy, and what you perceive as self-loathing and misery are really outside of you. Quit trying so hard and sit quietly with yourself and you will see that there are no demands within you. Only your surface is disturbed; in your deepness there is stillness and total tranquility. Only your surface feels empty and longing; in your depths there is a firm weight of fullness.” — Bryant McGill