Axsdeo

is there something wrong with me? do you see it? do you know what it is?

can you tell me?

can you tell me?

me: yeah i know, they’re all primary colors, it’s perfect

When you go for an MLS (Master’s of Library Science, which is a thing, and which is usually required for “professional-level” library work [which is also a weird and contentious concept that I won’t go into here]), one of the things you study is the organization of information. This deals with how to determine what a book or other material is “about"—a concept we tongue-in-cheek call “aboutness"—and how to convey that to a potential user of the item and make it easy for them to find. Things like keywords and subject headings, do I put this book about how often wild birds attack aerial drones in with books about birds or with books about technology, if its a fictional novel do I put fantasy in it’s own section or mix it in with all of the other fiction, so on and so on.

OP is organizing books by how they would look for them. OP’s partner is thinking in terms of aboutness. This is a system that works for OP because it’s their personal library: they know basically what books they own and they only own books that are relevant to them, and if they know what the book looks like, that can be a quick way to find it.

In a library that assumes the public (or people who do not own that particular collection of books) are using the collection, that doesn’t work. Books are often re-issued in multiple covers, or re-bound in new covers when they get worn out, and if the user doesn’t know what the book looks like or is expecting a different cover, they’re lost. That’s why non-personal libraries used standardized cataloging systems like the Dewey Decimal System or Library of Congress System to organize a book by what it’s “about”, and then put books about the same or similar topics together, marked with labels and signage so a person unfamiliar with the book or collection can find their way to it.

Basically, OP’s system works for their own personal library, because it’s best suited to how the primary user—OP themselves—looks for books. OP’s librarian partner is coming from a background of thinking in terms of a public-facing collection, where aboutness is the key criteria and communicating it to a user unfamiliar with the collection is the priority.

vote 4 ass. vote senshi.

Tenna art by @9Aaaalt29 on twt

The rise of overly dark Magical Girl shows, which contain suffering for no other purpose than to display said suffering, largely stems from a complete misunderstanding of what Madoka was, and what made it great.

Madoka spends two and a half episodes setting up a happy, cheerful, Magical Girl show, and then spends eight and a half episodes rejecting that premise, showing that hope only leads to despair, that a wish will lead to a curse, that things cannot fundamentally improve, and that trying to make things better will only bring suffering upon yourself and others. This is what derivative "tragical girl" shows were about; the suffering of young women for its own sake, as if that was the point of Madoka, as if the suffering was the entire point.

The last episode, however, has Madoka herself rejecting the show's entire premise. She's told hope leads to despair, and exclaims "If someone says it's wrong to have hope, I will tell them they're wrong every single time.". She's told that the very foundation of the universe leads to suffering being inherent, constant, and that the only thing one can do is to endure said suffering as long as one can bear, before falling to despair and inflicting the suffering one has experienced unto others; she's told that any wish will become a curse, yet ends the show saying "All those Magical Girls who held onto their hopes and fought against witches, I don't want to see them cry—I want them to stay smiling until the end. If any rule or law stands in my way, I will destroy it. I will rewrite it. That is my wish, that is my prayer.""

Walpurgisnacht had been set up as the most terrible witch to ever exist up until that point, and the viewer had been led to believe they'd fight to the death against it, and inevitably lose—as a Magical Girl seemingly always does in the Madoka universe. Madoka does not fight her, Madoka shows compassion, simply stating "It's okay. It's okay now, you don't have to hate anyone anymore, you don't have to curse anyone anymore. I'll go back, before you took that form, and shoulder that burden for you". There was no fight, and Madoka simply took on her despair, as she took on everyone else's, allowing them to once again have hope.

There was one episode with a trans woman getting different gender-affirming operations, including breast implants. It showed the procedure, and (what I found so fascinating that it's stuck with me for decades), as soon as the doctor put the implant in, a censor blur popped up on the nipple.

And you just know there was a meeting between the TLC lawyers and the editors and producers of the show to discuss what the difference was between a "man nipple" (can be shown) and a "woman nipple" (no no must obscure, 'tis naughty). And they decided that as soon as the implant goes in and the nipple has more mass behind it, that's the moment when it becomes a woman's nipple and must be hidden to comply with TV rules.

But it's the same nipple. On the same person. I know what it looks like; I just saw it. But TV and obscenity rules are rules, and the rules say woman nipple = sexual and therefore explicit, but man nipple = neutral, just fine.

See, we were talking about how movies are pretend and how in real life, animals don’t talk. I mentioned that there are some birds who talk a little bit, but not like the animals in movies, and she just looked at me like “???”

So I informed her that some kinds of parrots can copy sounds that people make, and can learn how to say words. I thought this would give her a giggle, as fun new facts often do, but she was just deeply perplexed and a little worried about this.

“Birds can talk?” “Do they ask questions?” “What do they say?” Why do they talk?” “Do chickens talk?” “What about Blue Jays?” “Why do some birds talk?” “How do they talk?” “Birds TALK???”

We showed her a video of a parrot doing the “Hello, pretty bird, give a kiss” thing, and she was dead silent the whole time, hugging her comfort pillow with her knees to her chest. We asked if she wanted us to turn it off, and she shook her head. But we also asked if she wanted to see another one, and she shook her head even harder.

I don’t know why it has distressed her so greatly to learn that some birds can mimic human speech; but then again, I don’t know why it doesn’t distress the rest of us more to know that some birds can mimic human speech.

But more importantly they love the sound of human laughter. No one knows why. But it is totally, 100% possible, and it happens to this day, to walk along the paths in the Black Forest and suddenly hear a strange kind of giggling sound, or maybe even a very clear, definitely human sounding “hello?” “Hiiiii!” Or “let’s go!”.

However, it takes a lot of practice for them to copy sounds as perfectly as they do, so you’re equally likely to hear something that definitely sounds human-like, but the words make no sense and the sound is unlike any language you know.

Ravens at the Tower of London do this all the time. Theyre pretty sociable with humans though, so they do it quite openly. I have seen videos of people, mostly Americans, look absolutely spooked out of their skins when a big ol’ raven (mind ye, these are birds that are 2 feet tall with a 5 foot wingspan) comes waltzing up on the deck and starts talking to them.

And ravens, especially the ones there that have been bred and raised by humans for centuries, don’t just imitate - they have one of the same language processing genes we do, and they understand the way a toddler might that things, places, and individuals have names, and can string together basic sentences much like an african grey.

I know because I used to work with one, Darlene, who knew, quite well, what she wanted and how to ask for it. If you were preparing her breakfast, she would hop on up and investigate. She used to be an illegal pet, and had been taught “manners”. That is to say, if she went for something and you told her, sternly, “mind your manners missy!” She would stop, look at you, perhaps for up to a minute, and then point with her beak to what she wanted. If that did not work, she would ask, in plain English, “grape?” Or “Darl have grape?” And lord help you if you gave her anything less than what she asked for. She would throw it at you, and try to bite you, sometimes while saying “No!” In the same tone as I imagine she was reprimanded in her home.

Paying attention to the lyrics in Flower Man, the lines "Hope that powered the Flower Man" and "Even if broken, I am more than glass" really stick out to me as the thesis statement of Flowery as a character.

The shadow crystals become glass in the light world, and it's confirmed in chapter 5 that they're made of broken dreams. The 1st verse of the song is seemingly about the flowers' feelings while they're in the light world. "Could I do something just to make him laugh inside my little chamber made of glass?" In the light world, the Flowers are only able to observe Asgore as he spirals, unable to assert their own will or dreams. They are literally encased in the broken dreams material*, but I find Flowery asserting that, even if he breaks, he is more than his cage to be really powerful. Even if broken, he is more than dreams, he has will, agency, and power. This guy spends the whole chapter trying to make the dark world perfect for Asgore by asserting his own ideas of what Asgore would find perfect. He has gained some freedom, and while he genuinely wants Asgore to be happy, he wants to assert that freedom first. He wants Asgore to be happy the Flowery way, not the Asgore way. He is desperately clinging onto the idea that he is more than the broken dreams his lightworld form and its case represent, and I think it really heavily contextualises why he is the way he is