http://www.biresource.net/BRC_Brochure_2010.pdf (Bisexual Resource Center: USA) “The BRC uses bisexual as an umbrella term for people who recognize and honor their potential for sexual and emotional attraction to more than one gender. We celebrate and affirm the diversity of identity and expression regardless of labels.”
http://bisexual.org/am-i-bi/ (American Institute of Bisexuality) “A bi person has the capacity for romantic and/or sexual attraction to more than one gender.”
http://www.bisexualindex.org.uk/index.php/AmIBisexual (Bisexual Index: UK) “This is how we define it: A bisexual is someone who is attracted to more than one gender. You might care about the gender of your partner a lot, a little, or not at all – but their gender doesn’t prevent you from being attracted to them.”
“I call myself bisexual because I acknowledge that I have in myself the potential to be attracted – romantically and/or sexually – to people of more than one sex and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.”
“bisexuality is, broadly speaking, the attraction to two or more genders. bisexuality is not inherently or transphobic or exclusive of non binary genders—note that there are both binary and non-binary trans people who identify as bisexual. it is possible for bisexuals to be attracted to be attracted to anywhere from two to an infinite number of genders. many times, bisexuals will define their own sexuality as the attraction to both similar and different genders (which encompasses all genders). however, it is important to remember that bisexuals can be attracted to multiple genders without being attracted to people of their own gender. for example, an agender bi person may be attracted to women, bigender, and genderfluid people, or a bi woman might be attracted to men and agender people…..”
“Bisexuals have been defining bisexuality as the attraction to two or more/same and other for decades. This isn’t some made-up tumblr joke. Words change meaning. Prefixes change meanings. We didn’t even give ourselves the term bisexual to begin with, doctors did.”
“bisexual- sexually attracted to your same/similar gender and other gender(s), OR sexually attracted to 2 or more genders. Some bisexuals feel that they experience different kinds or degrees of attraction to different genders/gender presentations.”
“Bi: attracted to two or more genders. Some people will define it as “attracted to similar and different genders,” but this is slightly less inclusive than the above definition. I’m of the mind that “similar and different” evolved to satisfy bi=2 prescriptivists, but they are insatiable and forever gross.”
“…being bi does not reinforce the gender binary. And some bi people are only attracted to men and women–and that’s ok! However, bi is not defined as the attraction to men and women, or two genders. It can be for an individual, but not for our entire community. That definition is not only false, but harmful. (This is not to imply that bi people can’t be transphobic!)
This also means that you don’t have to be sexually attracted to people to be bi. There are so many different kinds of attraction, and to just focus on bisexuality would be excluding a lot of people (e.g. being biromantic).”
“Bisexuality is not half gay and half straight. Bisexuality is not in between gay and straight. Bisexuality is not gay when dating the same gender and straight when dating a different gender. Bisexuality is not gay-ish or straight-ish.
Bisexuality is its own fully independent self-contained complete orientation.”
“We are tired of being analyzed, defined and represented by people other than ourselves, or worse yet, not considered at all. We are frustrated by the imposed isolation and invisibility that comes from being told or expected to choose either a homosexual or heterosexual identity.
Monosexuality is a heterosexist dictate used to oppress homosexuals and to negate the validity of bisexuality.
Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have “two” sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders. Do not mistake our fluidity for confusion, irresponsibility, or an inability to commit. Do not equate promiscuity, infidelity, or unsafe sexual behavior with bisexuality. Those are human traits that cross all sexual orientations. Nothing should be assumed about anyone’s sexuality, including your own.
We are angered by those who refuse to accept our existence; our issues; our contributions; our alliances; our voice. It is time for the bisexual voice to be heard“
”Defining bisexuality, just like defining any identity label, can be complicated and controversial. My definition of the label “bisexual” is informed by the work of The Bisexual Organizing Project. It includes people who use labels such as “bisexual,” “non-monosexual,” “persexual,” “omnisexual,” “ambisexual,” “pansexual,” “queer” or any other term that people use to identify themselves as individuals who are emotionally, romantically or physically attracted to people of more than one sex, gender or gender identity. I also recognize that not everyone chooses to adopt a label to describe their sexual orientation, and I also include non-labeling people who see themselves as part of a queer, non-monosexual or bisexual community under my definition of “bisexual.”“
Reasons why the prefix/etymology argument is not a very good one against “bi = attraction to 2 or more”
So a while ago there was this post going around about the houses in Harry Potter and how it makes no sense for Slytherin- the house that’s supposed to be all about personal ambition- to be the house full of people who support an evil overlord, and how it’d make way more sense for Gryffindor to be the one full of zealots who are willing to serve their master to the end. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find it, or I would have made this comment there: I realized there’s a very simple in-universe way to explain this.
It’s the Sorting Hat.
It’s said several times that the Sorting Hat’s first priority is that if a student badly wants to be in a certain house, it puts them there. Now consider- what was Salazar Slytherin’s reputation?
Even the Hat itself goes back and forth a bit about whether he intended for his house to be about ambition (which is how the song describes it in the first book) or about bloodlines (which is how it describes it in its new song later). What if Salazar told the Hat to sort to his house based on ambition (probably because Helga Hufflepuff was giving him this look like, “I respect you as a colleague but I swear to Merlin if you get your shitty opinions in my school I will fucking end you” and Godric Gryffindor had this big fake “I will hold her coat while she ends you” smile), but because he was a noted pureblood supremacist, a ton of people assumed that that was what his house was about?
Sirius says it was taken as a granted that all Blacks were to be in Slytherin, and Draco has a similar “well duh” attitude about Malfoys and Slytherin that got him sorted so quickly the Hat barely even touched his head. If it was basing it off the traits it’s supposed to be focusing on, this wouldn’t make any sense- different people, even ones growing up in the same household with very similar circumstances, will have different personalities. Which means that if being in Slytherin is a family tradition, then a lot of them aren’t there because of their personality, they’re there because, well, it’s a family tradition, and they chose to be.
(BTW: see also: Weasleys all being Gryffindors. I wouldn’t be surprised if Percy, for instance, was a bit more of a Slytherin, but put himself in Gryffindor because that’s what his parents expected.)
Somebody like Bellatrix Lestrange is, honestly, pure Gryffindor. She endures a decade and a half of Azkaban on behalf of her lord, respects and loves him above all else, and will put herself in harm’s way in any manner she needs to to aid him. She doesn’t seem to have any particular ambition on her own behalf; it’s all for Voldy. Sure, she’s a horrifically cruel monster, but there’s nothing against that in the Gryffindor charter, and nothing for it in the Slytherin one. But because she has always believed firmly in the (bigoted, racist) ideals of Salazar Slytherin, she asked to be put in his house, so she was.
And that goes a long way to explaining why so many Death Eaters and similar assholes are in Slytherin. It’s not that it’s inherently the asshole house, it’s that the assholes all think it’s the asshole house, so it’s… well, full of assholes who wouldn’t otherwise be there.
Which means there are probably a lot of Slytherins who followed the family tradition, but then, a few years in, abruptly realized, “…My god. Most of these people are terrible. And everyone probably thinks I’m just like them.”
Can you recommend any Gorillaz goodfic? I need to be writing mine, but I have no inspiration.
Sure thing! While I hardly ever come across Gorillaz fics that I would call good (many have good qualities, but also have numerous problems), there is, fortunately, a list of fanfic recommendations on TV Tropes (great website, by the way). I’ve only read a few of them (specifically “Father” and the first few chapters of A Man Out of Time), but what I’ve read is pretty good.
There’s also “Boxes,” which I’ve mentioned and praised a few times before. It’s about Noodle discovering that they’re genderfluid and coming out to the others about it. I really like how this interpretation is portrayed, and it’s great if you like heartwarming moments.
Lastly, here’s one of those fics which, while not being great, has a few great ideas: Where She Belongs. It’s a Nudoc fic in which Noodle, who is now eighteen and in a timeline where Plastic Beach didn’t happen, decides to enter a relationship with Murdoc after he rescues her from Hell. Again, I wouldn’t call it a masterpiece, since there’s numerous imperfections (not least among them being that Russel is portrayed as the ultimate bad guy for not approving of their relationship); however, Murdoc sounds like himself (overall), and the relationship isn’t portrayed as the lovey-dovey-honeymoon crap you see all the time in the media (these two argue a lot, and bad things happen thanks to their being together). I guess I’m recc-ing it because I really like the concept of Muds and Noods being in a realistic relationship, and that’s why I’m willing to forgive this fic’s excesses. (As for those…I dunno, but I’d like to talk more about this fic in the future. Also, there’s a lemon in this one, so be warned)
Well, I hope that was of assistance to you (despite my woefully limited knowledge of Gorillaz goodfic; to be honest, I get much more enjoyment out of badfic). Now, I really must try to finish the Noodle’s Secret Lover sporking; I plan to post it either tonight or before the New Year, so keep your eyes open!
I think the main differences between PS:T and most games that try to “give hard choices” to players, is that PS:T asks questions aimed at ethics and other games deal in morals.
There’s a big difference between morals and ethics. Morals are judging the *results* of actions based on public good\opinions. If people are happy, it was a good decision. If people are sad (or dead) it was a bad decision. So the most “hard” questions these games can come up with look like “if you do A then first group of people will be happy and the second group will be unhappy. if you do B, then… it will be the other way! What do you do??? ”
Ethics is way more complicated, because they judge *intentions* based on person’s own worldview\code\principles\etc. When people say that PS:T, Kotor2, Mask of the Betrayer are centered around personal journeys, it means that these games ask questions aimed at ethics, not public opinions. These questions are much more intricate and diverse and they may sound differently for different people depending on their worldviews. Also, everyone dealt with morals in their lives, but not everyone has ethics - or developed ethics for that matter. You can’t not notice moral questions, but you can easily miss ethical ones if the subject isn’t included in your own set of principles.
That’s why these games are subtle and that’s why the mystical beast of “grey morality” that, say, bioware tries to catch for years, actually works for them.
On an impulse, I got one of those 11.5lb containers of honey from the brewing store and a 3lb can of puréed peaches. It wasn’t until I got home and read up on melomels that I realized that I’d actually need 15lb of peaches, of which puréed is not ideal. Here’s my recipe and procedure, obsessive sanitation omitted:
11.5 lbs Orange Blossom Honey
3 lbs puréed peaches (one big can, available at the brewing store)
12 lbs frozen peaches
Distilled water (apparently, you’re supposed to use spring water, my bad)
Defrost the frozen peaches in a water bath with the honey. Warming the honey just helps it pour a bit better. If you can, gently warm your top up water as well.
Pour 2 gallons of water into the fermenter and get it moving with one of those wine-degassing/stirring attachments. While one person keeps the water moving, the other person slowly pours in the jug of honey and the can of peaches. Add some water to the honey jug when you’ve poured out all you can, shake it up to get as much out of it as you can, and throw that in the fermenter as well.
Add your yeast nutrient blend (more on that later) and yeast (Lalvin 71B-1122) and stir that up.
Open the bags of thawed peaches one at a time, mash up the fruit inside a bit by squeezing the bag, and dump that in as well.
Give the whole thing one last careful stir before sealing and adding an airlock or blowoff tube. You can see my fermenter is stupid full because I started with 3 gallons of water. I definitely recommend starting with 2 and you can top up to whatever volume you want at the end. I had an O.G. of 20.3°Bx (1.084), but the volume was a bit high, so expect something over 24.0°Bx (1.100) most of the time
Mead, compared to beer, is very lacking in nutrients that yeast need. On the plus side, mead has a strong resistance to oxidation. Because of these properties, mead is cared for differently than beer. It is common to stagger the addition of nutrients to the must to aid the yeast through the entire fermentation, not just at the beginning. This spreads out a single huge spike in temperature from the yeast into several smaller spikes, reducing fusel production and other off flavors, and producing better alcohol, faster. For this recipe, my staggered nutrient addition (SNA) schedule looks like this:
Create a nutrient blend of 1 teaspoon of yeast energizer (Fermaid-K) and 2 teaspoons of yeast nutrient(diammonium phosphate [DAP]). From this blend, add ¾ teaspoon at pitching, 24 hours after the beginning of fermentation, 48 hours after the beginning of fermentation, and after 30% of the sugar has been depleted (also known as the 1/3 sugar break). It is recommended to remove ½ cup of must with a sanitized thief, dissolve the nutrient blend in the sample, then reintroduce to the fermenter after degassing/oxygenating. Otherwise, adding the powder will cause the must to violently degas, spewing honey foam everywhere.
Melomels offer yet another challenge in that the fruit will form a cap over the mead that traps heat and carbon dioxide, both of which can harm your yeast babies. During the vigorous fermentation period, I’ll be breaking up the fruit cap twice a day and stirring with the wine degasser to release dissolved carbon dioxide and introduce more oxygen. Once half the sugar is gone, oxidation can become a problem, so I’ll stop degassing, but the fruit cap must continue to be managed.
As for temperature and stuff, I’ll probably leave it at 17°C (~62°F) for 4 weeks in primary, then age in a glass carboy around the same temperature for 4-8 weeks or until it tastes good, then bottling.
Credit to Curt Stock and tangentially Ken Schramm for most of this info.
Hoy me apetecía hablaros un poco de patrocinios de marcas en mis vídeos y lo que supone para el futuro de mi contenido.
Como bien entenderéis, trabajar con marcas es prácticamente la única forma de vivir o conseguir algo de dinero en youtube - especialmente para un canal de mi “tamaño”. Sin embargo hay unas cuantas cosas que yo tengo en cuenta a la hora de aceptar o declinar ofertas (que no os penséis que he hecho pocos vídeo esponsorizados por nada):
Yo estoy en la posición en la que estoy gracias a mis espectadores, una marca me contacta por ellos. Si CAMBIO o EMPEORO mi contenido por una marca no tengo porqué esperar que todos mis espectadores sigan ahí para el próximo vídeo. Algunos dirán que yo no les debo nada, pero ellos a mi tampoco.
Hacer vídeos en youtube es algo que amo y me llena de una forma que ni os imagináis, nunca voy a subir algo que no me guste a mi a mi propio canal. No quiero empeorar mi propia experiencia con la plataforma.
Solo haré vídeos de forma remunerada de marcas que me gusten y en las que crea. Por ejemplo, el martes subo uno con Perpetuall que (no es coña) usé cuando se me rompió el movil hace unas semanas.
Sin embargo, siempre aceptaré experiencias. No me gusta McDonalds, pero si me llevan a NY una semana no pienso decir que no. Si tú me quieres llevar a tu pueblo en fiestas, gastos cubiertos tampoco me negaré. ;)
Siempre sopesaré lo que me dan, claro. Si no es beneficioso para mi o no me motiva lo rechazaré.
Voy a intentar subir vídeos sponsorizados un día que no sea el jueves (el día que se supone que subo vídeos), así habrá DOS vídeos esa semana y además los que habéis leído esto sabréis que vídeo es patrocinado y cual no. Es decir, más patrocinios = más vídeos.
Creo que ya está. Para nada creo que esta es la forma correcta de hacerlo, cada youtuber tiene que tener un modelo propio y pensar una estrategia que se adecue a su canal y su audiencia. Esta es mi forma.
A few months ago, I read several articles touting the health benefits of writing in a deeply personal way. Studies had shown that writing introspectively on a regular basis can lead to lowered blood pressure, improved liver function and even the accelerated healing of postoperative wounds. The study’s subjects had been told to write for short periods each day about turbulent emotional experiences.
I bet a lot of them wrote about love. As the editor of this column, I have spent much of the last decade reading stories of people’s turbulent emotional experiences. They all involved love in one way or another.
Which isn’t so surprising. Who hasn’t been stirred up by love? But these writers had spun their experiences into stories and sent them here, where more than 99 percent must be turned away.
Although the would-be contributors may be happy to learn of the surprising health benefits of their writing, I think they hoped for a more glamorous reward than improved liver function.
Lately I have been thinking about those tens of thousands of passed-over stories and all the questions and lessons about love they represent. When taken together, what does all this writing reveal about us, or about love? Here’s what I have found.
First, and most basic: How we write about love depends on how old we are.
The young overwhelmingly write with a mixture of anxiety and hope. Their stories ask: What is it going to be for me?
Those in midlife are more often driven to their keyboards by feelings of malaise and disillusionment. Their stories ask: Is this really what it is for me?
And older people almost always write from a place of appreciation, regardless of how difficult things may be. Their message: All things considered, I feel pretty lucky.
In writing about love, the story of how we met looms large because a lot of us believe, validly or not, that a good meeting story bodes well for the relationship.
What do we consider to be a good meeting story? When it involves chance more than effort. You get bonus points if the chance encounter suggests compatibility, like mistakenly wheeling off with each other’s shopping carts at Whole Foods because your items had so much overlap, you got the carts mixed up.
“I get those beets all the time!” “You like Erewhon Supergrains, too?”
Pretty soon it’s time to get a room.
It seems the harder we work at finding love, the more prone we are to second-guessing the results. High-volume online daters worry about this, along with those who routinely attend singles events.
Continue reading the main story The fear is we may force things or compromise after pushing so hard for so long. We may admire hard work in most endeavors, but we admire laziness when it comes to finding love. (If you manage to stay together over the long haul, however, it will be because of effort, not chance.)
When some people write about love, they can’t find the right words to capture the intensity of their feelings, so they rely on stock terms that are best avoided. These include (but are not limited to): amazing, gorgeous, devastating, crushed, smitten, soul mate and electrifying.
Popular phrases include: “meet cute,” “heart pounded,” “heart melted,” “I’ll always remember,” “I’ll never forget” and “Reader, I married him.” Then there is everyone’s favorite stock word regardless of subject: literally. As in, “our date was literally electrifying.”
Women and men may feel love similarly, but they write about it differently.
A lot of men’s stories seem tinged by regret and nostalgia. They wish previous relationships hadn’t ended or romantic opportunities hadn’t slipped away. They lament not having been more emotionally open with lovers, wives, parents and children.
Women are more inclined to write with restlessness. They want to figure love out. Many keep mental lists of their expectations, detailing the characteristics of their hoped-for partner with alarming specificity and then evaluating how a new romantic interest does or doesn’t match that type.
They write something like, “I always pictured myself with someone taller, a guy with cropped brown hair and wire-rim glasses who wears khakis or jeans, the kind of person who would bring me tea in bed and read the Sunday paper with me on the couch.”
Men almost never describe the characteristics of their ideal partner in this way. Even if they have a specific picture in mind, few will put that vision to paper. I wonder if they’re embarrassed to.
Another list women frequently pull together is “The List of Flawed Men,” in which they dismiss each man they have gone out with over the last year with a single phrase. There was the slob with the sideburns, the med student who smoked too much pot, the gentle Texan who made felt hats but couldn’t commit, and the physically affectionate finance guy who always dropped her hand when he saw his friends.
This series of bad encounters has left them exasperated to the point of hopelessness, so they try to see the humor in it.
Men rarely compose that kind of list, either. In this case, I wonder if it’s because they’re afraid to, not wanting to be seen as belittling women. In general, men write more cautiously about women than the other way around.
Love stories are full of romantic delusion, idealizing love to an unhealthy degree. But in the accounts I see, men and women delude themselves in opposite directions.
A woman is more likely to believe her romantic ideal awaits somewhere in the future, where her long-held fantasy becomes a flesh-and-blood reality.
A man’s romantic ideal typically exists somewhere in the past in the form of an actual person he loved but let go of, or who got away. And he keeps going back to her in his mind, and probably also on Facebook and Instagram, thinking, “What if?”
I don’t know if men are worse than women when it comes to romantic rejection; they are clearly worse when it comes to literary rejection. Even though only 20 percent of submissions come from men, they send more than 90 percent of the angry emails I receive in response to being turned down. To these men, no does not mean no. No means the start of an inquiry as to how this possibly could have happened.
One man sneered at me: “You didn’t even read it, dude.”
To which I replied, sincerely: “Dude, I totally did.”
Writing about love can be similar to falling in love in that we must be as vulnerable on the page as we are in person when revealing ourselves to someone we hope will love us back. That means exposing our flaws and weaknesses and trusting we will be seen as more appealing, not less, for having done so.
Good writing about love features the same virtues that define a good relationship: honesty, generosity, open-mindedness, curiosity, humor and self-deprecation. Bad writing about love suffers from the same flaws that define a bad relationship: dishonesty, withholding, defensiveness, blame, pettiness and egotism.
It has been remarkable to watch the evolution in stories I have received from gay and lesbian writers. A decade ago, their stories focused on issues of marginalization, identity, coming out, and of strains with family members. Within a few years, their focus had turned overtly political in the fight for equality and marriage.
Today, gay writers have largely shed that baggage. They write about looking for love, marrying, starting a family, being a parent, even getting divorced. Sexual orientation that had once been central is now incidental. Which seems like a nice change.
With Valentine’s Day near and the right words about love always so hard to find, let me close by simply wishing you an amazing celebration of electrifying romance you never forget and always remember.
Hey! I'm rather curious about this, when this anime comes out, which I'm really hoping it does! I love this AU, will voice actors be needed?
We actually decided to make the first “episode” a kind of summary of the story so far, along with some making out because we can, so not for the first part no. The 2nd and 3rd episode more then likely will. However, we’re testing the waters with the first one to see how well everyone works together and you have no idea how happy it makes me to see that we do!
We actually had a lengthy discussion regarding voice actors for future projects, and if we do decide to to get voice actors, BR and SGT will get the final say on who will be voicing it.
Gann's romance in "sacrifice ending" and ancient tragedies, somehow
HEAVY MASK OF THE BETRAYER SPOILERS
I was discussing (well, more accurately gushing) with imaginaryprisons how MotB has a lot of references to Greek tragedies - dream sequences, flashback with women with same faces and drastically different colors, like costumes, the homebase of party being a literal theatre, etc.
But there’s more than just few nods. The core of the game is built on the same principals as Greek tragedies (which I freaking love bc I‘m mythology geek)
MotB switches focus between cosmic and intimate constantly, the scope changes from the whole multiverse to the smile shared between two people and back. The story around which MotB revolves is driven by passion. Usually Obsidian gives their character motivation of ideology, philosophy, belief, worldview, but sorry, Kaelyn - this is a theatrical tragedy and Akachi and the Founder live a story of love. But oh, what love it is! Love in Motb isn’t a cutesy Disney happy-end, it’s a force, unyielding, terrifying, cruel and selfish. Love of Akachi and the Founder shook the world’s order and the scars of it still haunt lives of innocents generations after. This game says “Yeah, love is the most powerful thing in the world! BE FUCKING AFRAID OF IT”
Oh wow, are you ready for this? Buckle up because I can tell this is gonna get long. I feel like Ross is the embodiment of every entitled white boy I ever mistakenly dated. Actually this question makes me suspicious because I’m convinced that no woman could possibly like Ross.
Ross is the epitome of a “nice guy”. In the very first episode Ross says he’d like to ask Rachel out because he had a (completely unexplainable and creepy imo) crush on her in high school. And then for two seasons, all he does is creep on her, watch her, pine after her, get jealous and angry over her… but does absolutely nothing. He literally never expresses his feelings for her and blames her for thinking of him as a friend, when he has never expressed his desire to be anything else with her.
And eventually he gets a new girlfriend, who he drops the second he finds out Rachel likes him back. Because weirdly enough when Rachel was made aware of his feelings, she was able to reassess her feelings towards him. Yet we’re meant to pity Ross for his totally avoidable situation? Yeah ok.
But before dropping his back-up girlfriend, Ross decides to make a list of reasons to not date Rachel (which he shares with half of her friend group wtf) including that she is apparently “spoiled”, “ditzy”, “too into her looks” and “just a waitress”. So let me reiterate, he is criticising that she is “too into her looks” despite having literally nothing in common with her and only ever falling in love with her because, you guessed it, of her looks. She’s supposed to be beautiful but unaware of it and have a great job but not act spoiled or entitled.
But he still expects her to forgive him for thinking those plainly arrogant and gross things. Because she should be so over joyed at winning his affections or something despite him literally just saying that she is too stupid to be with him? In fact, he is constantly trying to assert his intelligence over everyone else, mocking them for saying things he finds unintelligent and being a generally elitist douche.
So anyway eventually Rachel gets serious about her career and gets a great job. And so of course Ross decides to stalk and harass her at work because he’s convinced that she is falling in love with her coworker. Bear in mind this is after his previous criticism that her job wasn’t good enough for him. So now she has a career and instead of supporting her, he becomes a jealous creep again because part of her life is no longer dependent on him. And that’s supposed to be cute, and not possessive and borderline abusive… for some reason?
Actually Ross is a jealous, possessive and controlling character in all areas of his life. When Rachel falls pregnant, Ross bans her from dating other men. He has a tantrum when Monica starts dating Chandler. He feels like these women should be asking his permission for existing which is straight up gross and this controlling behavior is never raised as an issue. He always feels like the victim of these situations somehow, completely unaware of the fact that he is emotionally manipulative and possessive.
Not to mention the time Ross and Rachel get married, decide to have the marriage annulled but without telling her, Ross decides not to sign the annulment papers meaning they remain legally married without her knowledge. He literally forces Rachel to stay married to him against her will. Terrifying.
Ross is a terrifying, egotistical, cowardly, elitist, manipulative and controlling asshole. He never apologises for his awful behavior, and actually expects others to apologise to him for doing totally normal things. He doesn’t respect anyone, least of all Rachel, and blames anyone calling out his behaviour on him being “too nice”.
I was a reasonably good elementary school student (although certainly not the best in my class), and then a not-very-good middle school student, and then a poor student for much of high school. (I failed my junior English class, and had to write essays about The Bluest Eye and Twelfth Night over the summer to get a D.)
Some of this had to do with intellectual challenges: I was a bit behind the curve when it came to abstractions. Like, I could not handle the idea of the equation x + 2 = 4, because x is not a number, so how is that even possible? My struggle with abstractions was also seen in my study of literature and anything that couldn’t be, like, memorized. (I’ve always been a pretty good speller, for instance.)
Some of my troubles in school also had to do with what in retrospect were social and mental health challenges. But I was very lucky to have teachers who saw a lot of potential in me and refused to give up on me, even when I was defiant and annoying and set off fireworks outside their bedroom windows. (Do not do this. It is not cool. It is just annoying.)
That said, I think it’s an oversimplification to say that I was a “troubled child” or whatever. By college, I was engaged and interested in many of my subjects and became, as my favorite college professor once called me, “a solid B+ kind of fellow.”
I don’t think it’s fair to see some kids as merely smart and others as merely troubled, or to think that kids who are performing poorly in school are simply miscreants/stupid/whatever. (It’s also unfair to portray kids who perform well in school or who have expansive vocabularies or whatever as inherently untroubled.)
Of course, none of this should be an excuse to give up. It can be really hard to try to stay engaged in school/learning/anything, especially when you don’t have the kind of support I was lucky to enjoy. But it’s also worth it. Learning is hard, and learning how to learn is hard, and it doesn’t happen overnight. It really is something that we have to do for a lifetime—or, more optimistically, that we get to do for a lifetime.
Let's go over the second part of the speech again shall we? You useless old fool. It was Hego Damask as Darth Plagueis who came to Naboo, determined to suck the planet dry of plasma and set the Trade Federation up as its overseers. It was Hego Damask as Plagueis who then set his sights on a seemingly confused young man and, with meticulous skill, manipulated him into committing patricide, matricide, fratricide. Darth Plagueis who took him as an apprentice, sharing some of his knowledge but withholding his most powerful secrets, denying the apprentice his wishes as a means of controlling him, instilling in him a sense of murderous rage, and turning him to the dark side. It was Plagueis who criticized the early efforts of his apprentice, and who once choked him in a demonstration of his superiority. Plagueis, who denigrated him in private for hiring an inept assassin to carry out the murder of Senator Kim- and yet who allowed himself to be tricked by the Gran and nearly killed by mercenaries. Plagueis, who turned away from the Grand Plan to focus entirely on himself, in an egotistical quest for immortality. Plagueis who had the temerity to criticize his apprentice for having inculcated to much pride in the assassin he had trained. Plagueis, who attempted to turn his equally powerful apprentice into a messenger and mere intermediary. And Plagueis who watched in secret while his apprentice tasked in their true intermediary to reveal the re-born Sith to the galaxy. Plagueis the Wise, who in his time was, except at the end, trusting that the Rule of Two had been superseded, and failed to realise that he would not be excused from it. Plagueis the Wise, who forged the most powerful Sith Lord ever known, and yet who forgot to leave a place for himself; whose pride never allowed him to question that he would no longer be needed.
i came out tonight to have a good time and honestly i'm feeling so attacked right now.
Industries that once seemed resistant to change are only now entering the early stages of major disruption. A large percentage of the health-care industry, for example, includes the rote work of recording, storing and accessing medical records. But many companies are currently devising ways to digitize our medical documents more efficiently. Many economists believe that peer-to-peer lending, Bitcoin and other financial innovations will soon strike at the core of banking by making it easier to receive loans or seed money outside a traditional institution. Education is facing the threat of computer-based learning posed by Khan Academy, Coursera and other upstart companies. Government is changing, too. India recently introduced a site that allows anybody to see which government workers are showing up for their jobs on time (or at all) and which are shirking. Similarly, Houston recently developed a complex database that helps managers put an end to runaway overtime costs. These changes are still new, in part because so many large businesses benefit from the old system and use their capital to impede innovation. But the changes will inevitably become greater, and the results will be drastic. Those four industries — health care, finance, education and government — represent well more than half of the U.S. economy. The lives of tens of millions of people will change.
Some professions, however, are already demonstrating ways to embrace failure. For example, there’s an uncharacteristic explosion of creativity among accountants. Yes, accountants: Groups like the Thriveal C.P.A. Network and the VeraSage Institute are leading that profession from its roots in near-total risk aversion to something approaching the opposite. Computing may have commoditized much of the industry’s everyday work, but some enterprising accountants are learning how to use some of their biggest assets — the trust of their clients and access to financial data — to provide deep insights into a company’s business. They’re identifying which activities are most profitable, which ones are wasteful and when the former become the latter. Accounting once was entirely backward-looking and, because no one would pay for an audit for fun, dependent on government regulation. It was a cost. Now real-time networked software can make it forward-looking and a source of profit. It’s worth remembering, though, that this process never ends: As soon as accountants discover a new sort of service to provide their customers, some software innovator will be seeking ways to automate it, which means those accountants will work to constantly come up with even newer ideas. The failure loop will continue to close.
Lawyers, too, are trying to transform computers from a threat into a value-adding tool. For centuries the legal profession has made a great deal of money from drawing up contracts or patent applications that inevitably sit in drawers, unexamined. Software can insert boilerplate language more cheaply now. But some computer-minded lawyers have found real value in those cabinets filled with old contracts and patent filings. They use data-sniffing programs and their own legal expertise to cull through millions of patent applications or contracts to build never-before-seen complex models of the business landscape and sell it to their clients.
The manufacturing industry is going through the early stages of its own change. Until quite recently, it cost tens of millions of dollars to build a manufacturing plant. Today, 3-D printing and cloud manufacturing, a process in which entrepreneurs pay relatively little to access other companies’ machines during downtime, have drastically lowered the barrier to entry for new companies. Many imagine this will revitalize the business of making things in America. Successful factories, like accounting firms, need to focus on special new products that no one in Asia has yet figured out how to mass produce. Something similar is happening in agriculture, where commodity grains are tended by computer-run tractors as farming entrepreneurs seek more value in heritage, organic, local and other specialty crops. This has been manifested in the stunning proliferation of apple varieties in our stores over the past couple of years.
Every other major shift in economic order has made an enormous impact on the nature of personal and family life, and this one probably will, too. Rather than undertake one career for our entire working lives, with minimal failure allowed, many of us will be forced to experiment with several careers, frequently changing course as the market demands — and not always succeeding in our new efforts. In the corporate era, most people borrowed their reputations from the large institutions they affiliated themselves with: their employers, perhaps, or their universities. Our own personal reputations will now matter more, and they will be far more self-made. As career trajectories and earnings become increasingly volatile, gender roles will fragment further, and many families will spend some time in which the mother is a primary breadwinner and the father is underemployed and at home with the children. It will be harder to explain what you do for a living to acquaintances. The advice of mentors, whose wisdom is ascribed to a passing age, will mean less and less.
To succeed in the innovation era, says Daron Acemoglu, a prominent M.I.T. economist, we will need, above all, to build a new set of institutions, something like the societal equivalent of those office parks in Sunnyvale, that help us stay flexible in the midst of turbulent lives. We’ll need modern insurance and financial products that encourage us to pursue entrepreneurial ideas or the education needed for a career change. And we’ll need incentives that encourage us to take these risks; we won’t take them if we fear paying the full cost of failure. Acemoglu says we will need a far stronger safety net, because a society that encourages risk will intrinsically be wealthier over all.
History is filled with examples of societal innovation, like the United States Constitution and the eight-hour workday, that have made many people better off. These beneficial changes tend to come, Acemoglu told me, when large swaths of the population rally together to demand them. He says it’s too early to fully understand exactly what sorts of governing innovations we need today, because the new economic system is still emerging and questions about it remain: How many people will be displaced by robots and mobile apps? How many new jobs will be created? We can’t build the right social institutions until we know the precise problem we’re solving. “I don’t think we are quite there yet,” he told me.
Generally, those with power and wealth resist any significant shift in the existing institutions. Robber barons fought many of the changes of the Progressive Era, and Wall Street fought the reforms of the 1930s. Today, the political system seems incapable of wholesale reinvention. But Acemoglu said that could change in an instant if enough people demand it. In 1900, after all, it was impossible to predict the rise of the modern corporation, labor unions, Social Security and other transformative institutions that shifted gains from the wealthy to workers.
We are a strange species, at once risk-averse and thrill-seeking, terrified of failure but eager for new adventure. If we discover ways to share those risks and those rewards, then we could conceivably arrive somewhere better. The pre-modern era was all risk and no reward. The corporate era had modest rewards and minimal risks. If we conquer our fear of failure, we can, just maybe, have both.
What does it take to work out a good and balanced oc x Shinsengumi captain relationship within Hakuouki? Could you please give us your opinion and examples? Your pov is really important to me.
Sorry for the very late answer. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I went on vacation without mentioning it here.I assume we’re talking female OCs here, since most yaoi fans ship the Shinsengumi captains together. :-)
Ok, this is purely going to be my opinion, but with the exception of Okita Souji, who is his own special guy, I don’t think there’s anything really difficult or challenging about writing a relationship with one of the Hakuouki captains. Or rather, creating a character and writing a good in-character ship for a canon character is always difficult and challenging, but the challenge is mostly in using your creative and writing skills to make your fiction interesting and in-character.
But what I think makes it easy is that most of the Hakuouki guys quite obviously are a soft touch when it comes to women. It’s not like trying to fit an OC into canon material where the main guys never show any romantic inclinations. It’s completely in character for these guys to fall in love, and since only one of them gets Chizuru, it’s not like you’re disrupting the canon love interest to fit your OC in. I think writing an OC love interest in Hakuouki is like writing a separate route.
The Shinsengumi did discourage marriage/settling down, so if you want a happy-ever-after-married ending for your lovers, it might be a good idea to put that off to post-war, much like the routes in Hakuouki.
In the meantime, uh… I’ll just say that virginity before marriage was very important for a well-bred samurai daughter like Chizuru, and the same would go for fairly well-off merchant and peasant women, but not so much for the lower classes. And people being people, stuff happened even when it wasn’t supposed to.
As for Okita Souji, he’s difficult. It was hard enough for Chizuru to get through to him in his route, and it was really only Kondou’s death that created the conditions for him to focus on romance. Writing a Souji/OC romance seems to me like a huge challenge, though I’m sure someone will enjoy taking the challenge.
Moving on to the historical aspects of keeping your OC in character.
I just watched my friend run a half-marathon. After the half-marathon ended, she said she was happy she pushed herself to run, and although it was hard, she is happy she did it. My question is, what was a hard thing/goal you had to accomplish and push yourself to achieve? Do you have any advice on getting through the challenges to achieve that thing/goal?
I mean there are big things like finishing a novel or whatever, but:
Your question really makes me think of last Saturday, when I was in my little apartment in Charlotte, feeling pretty lonely and missing my family. And one of the things I sometimes struggle with is that when I get in an obsessive thought spiral, it’s really hard to do basic stuff like throw away Diet Dr. Pepper cans and do laundry and brush my teeth and take my medication and check the mail and pay bills and tie my shoes and so on. There have been times, for instance, when I’ve been unable to leave the house because I couldn’t tie my shoes. (I realize this is weird, obvs., I’m just telling you.)
And so on Saturday instead of being mad at myself for living in filth or whatever, I was like, “Okay. This is okay. This stuff is hard. Living is hard. You brain is wired funny. No one is mad at you. What you’re gonna do is like throw away the Diet Dr. Pepper cans and then kind of go from there and see how much progress you make,” and I picked up the entire apartment and put all the dirty clothes into a hamper and made myself a bowl of Raisin Bran and got myself cleaned up and dressed and everything. Then I walked to CVS and got my medication refill and picked up a couple frozen pizzas.
I ended up meeting Jaz (Angela) and Halston (Lacey) and Jake (movie director) and had some dinner and then had a really enjoyable evening with the whole cast and it became a pretty good day, and none of this is advice I realize; it is just the story of how a not-great day turned into a pretty damn good one.
Decided to write some of these down because of a) recent conversations with quicksilver-ink and b) the fact that I had to spend a whole lot of time today waiting for the centrifuge to run and didn’t have much else to do. Spoilers, obviously, and the amount of distressingness you’d expect from bad ends.