A man's fate is decided by none but himself.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT REAL STEPPE NOMADS FUCKING WORE???

HERE'S THE FUCKING REFERENCES I CREATED FOR A XIONGNU-INSPIRED DND CHARACTER COMMISSION. AND THAT WAS SOMEHOW MORE RESEARCH THAN GRR MARTIN AND HBO COULD BE PISSED DOING.

vs

LOOK AT THE FUCKING ARTESTY. THE CRAFTSMANSHIP. THE EMBROIDERY.

One thing I don't see discussed enough about game of thrones is the blatant orientialism. hey quick question, why are the real cultures you were "inspired by" portrayed as basically human-orcs? 1) why are nomadic societies automatically portrayed as being incapable of valuing or producing sophisticated clothes, and why is that costuming directly linked to their "bloodthirsty" and "warlike" natures? did you know their IRL counterparts the xiongnu/jurchens/mongols/hu people LOVED the fancy silks produced by the han chinese. not only was this a key part of diplomacy between the two nations. (surprise! they were not constantly at war, because steppe nomads were not bloodthristy monsters who loved death, but real people engaged in resource competition and territory control). it was also part of the internal politics of steppe culture, e.g., who was favoured by the leader and how valuable gifts were distributed among the nobility. but noooo that would mean thinking of them as real people motivated by complicated things like politics, status and culture within their tribes! and who would watch a show about people doing that? -_- 2) why do their societies revolve around killing and conquest, and have no love for intellectual or artistic pursuits? historically, genghis khan, kublai khan, ect, valued scholars and did everything they could to patronise/kidnap/poach huge numbers of them, and this was key to their tactical success! han chinese engineers were captured, and used to build siege engines to take down the great wall! that portrait of kublai khan you see up there was drawn by the nepalese artist araniko, a child prodigy who was part of the khan's court. does khal drogo have a flock of artists following him around, propagandising his greatness to the world, so everyone knows that he is a man of culture and his rule has legitimacy? no, he burns down villages for fun? cool. cool cool.

3) why are the dothraki portrayed as lawless brigands who are incapable of governing their captured territory, when the mongol-led yuan dynasty managed to conquer and rule over china, and genghis khan was responsible for expanding the silk road, and enforcing such effective law and order over it that it resulted in the pax mongolica, and increased trade between the east and west? is it because they "don't wanna?"' why? are they a monolith? why would they throw away the advantages of all that trade control? are they just "intrinsically incapable of it?" would you care to expand on that?

picture references:

clothing of a Xiongnu chief, 2nd century BCE-1st century CE. Reconstruction by archaeologist A.N. Podushkin, in the Central State Museum of Kazakhstan.[77][78]

Noin-Ula carpet, animal style. 1st century CE.[236]

Xiongnu Leather Robe, Han period, Henan Provincial Museum, Zhengzhou

Belt buckle with animal combat scene, 2nd-1st century BCE, made in North China for the Xiongnu.[267][157]

I KNOW HOW MY FILTHY MUTANT ABILITIES UPSET YOU, SCHMIDT. DON’T WORRY–

–YOU WILL DIE PURE. NO MAGNETISM 

this is it, this is all of it. By arguing about things like healthcare (including abortion, narcan, insulin, transition care), queer rights, environmental racism, infrastructure, war--all of these things. What you're arguing about it what lives are worth saving.

Mališa, otherwise known as Little One, is a pet pigeon owned by a conservative butler of the Austro-Hungarian aristocracy. She is loved, and she is pampered— until her owner is murdered in cold blood, and she is left to fend for herself in Sarajevo.

In the wilds of the city, she feeds from the poor, working nationalist radicals, and the vieux riches alike.

To Mališa, there are no ethical concerns. No politics. No burgeoning nationalism.

"I'm pretty sure that fella ain't here legally."

"Well, that ain't your business Chip, it's his."

They hate being preached to. If you pull out words like 'gender wage gap' they'll tell you you're brainwashed by the far left media.

"He's one of them transgenders."

Shut down the conversation without reacting.

"His dick, not mine" will get you much further to shutting that guy down than "well it's really inappropriate to call someone a slur while I'm the job site".

“State the idea you wish to express as clearly as possible, and in terms preschoolers can understand.” Example: It is dangerous to play in the street. ​​​​​​

“Rephrase in a positive manner,” as in It is good to play where it is safe.

“Rephrase the idea, bearing in mind that preschoolers cannot yet make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to authorities they trust.” As in, “Ask your parents where it is safe to play.”

“Rephrase your idea to eliminate all elements that could be considered prescriptive, directive, or instructive.” In the example, that’d mean getting rid of “ask”: Your parents will tell you where it is safe to play.

“Rephrase any element that suggests certainty.” That’d be “will”: Your parents can tell you where it is safe to play.

“Rephrase your idea to eliminate any element that may not apply to all children.” Not all children know their parents, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play.

“Add a simple motivational idea that gives preschoolers a reason to follow your advice.” Perhaps: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is good to listen to them.

“Rephrase your new statement, repeating the first step.” “Good” represents a value judgment, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them.

“Rephrase your idea a final time, relating it to some phase of development a preschooler can understand.” Maybe: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them, and listening is an important part of growing.

In working on the show, Rogers interacted extensively with academic researchers. Daniel R. Anderson, a psychologist formerly at the University of Massachusetts who worked as an advisor for the show, remembered a speaking trip to Germany at which some members of an academic audience raised questions about Rogers’s direct approach on television. They were concerned that it could lead to false expectations from children of personal support from a televised figure. Anderson was impressed with the depth of Rogers’s reaction, and with the fact that he went back to production carefully screening scripts for any hint of language that could confuse children in that way.

In fact, Freddish and Rogers’s philosophy of child development is actually derived from some of the leading 20th-century scholars of the subject. In the 1950s, Rogers, already well known for a previous children’s TV program, was pursuing a graduate degree at The Pittsburgh Theological Seminary when a teacher there recommended he also study under the child-development expert Margaret McFarland at the University of Pittsburgh. There he was exposed to the theories of legendary faculty, including McFarland, Benjamin Spock, Erik Erikson, and T. Berry Brazelton. Rogers learned the highest standards in this emerging academic field, and he applied them to his program for almost half a century.

So the creator titled this "Caveman Cooking," but I have decided that it is Grug the Orc making Peanut Butter Squares. Link to original post.