Sword and The Scoob: The RPG!
RMH
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
Keni
styofa doing anything
One Nice Bug Per Day
KIROKAZE
occasionally subtle
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
h

⣠Chile in a Photography âŁ
AnasAbdin
hello vonnie


â
Today's Document

izzy's playlists!
tumblr dot com
ojovivo
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
seen from New Zealand

seen from Indonesia

seen from India

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Austria
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from TĂźrkiye
seen from India

seen from TĂźrkiye

seen from United States

seen from Italy

seen from TĂźrkiye

seen from Switzerland

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Poland

seen from TĂźrkiye
@shinobicyrus
Sword and The Scoob: The RPG!

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
compilation of drawings for a vaphne kingdom AU (loosely inspired by sword and the scoob, and the "greece is the word" ep from be cool, scooby-doo) something i was doing last year with @artistic-mathematics :D
You know, I don't think I'll ever get over how that one post I made about women as knights in history, made it all the way to Reddit only for a bunch of redditors to argue that women couldn't actually be knights because:
- "the term is gendered" (it's not, and feminine equivalents were sometimes created specifically for the purpose)
- "they didn't actually do things as knights" (who didn't? The Hatchet women fought the Moors. A few other Orders had women as masters of arms. Both martial and formal examples)
...and a few other reasons that come down to "I don't like imagining my manly men in steel had women in their ranks, girls have cooties".
And the reason I say this is because recently, Wikipedia updated their page on "Knight", specifically adding a section about women with the title of knighthood, and what function they performed. And I know: "Wikipedia is not an academic source"--but every academic institution will accept the sources and articles used to back up wikipages, which confirm what has been said.
Knights were sometimes women. đ¤ˇ
I saw this and needed to answer.
The gendered versions of 'knight' come from Romance languages, and literally just change the word to fit the gender of the subject (within a binary). So it isn't like English, where a female knight has always been a 'Dame', but, using Spain as an example, the word for Knight in Spanish is 'Cabellero'. This is the default masculine.
The feminine word for Knight? 'Cabellera'.
Similarly in French: "Chevalier" becomes "ChevaliĂŠre".
In Italian, "Cavaliere" becomes "Cavaliera".
Outside of Romance languages, "knight" is just a title for a social rank, so even the English Dame is by default a knight by rank, but may not have the title (although not impossible).
So it's not a silly infantilisation, than using a word for the knightly class and gendering it in a binary, which means we can actually tell that, yes, women as knights existed, enough that the feminine form of the word pops up now and then, so we know it existed.
ooh, where one could read that original post??
Just a note about translations and ... well, patriarchal bullshit.
When you say "Hatchet women fought the Moors" I was like "hey, that seems to be part of my local history, how have I never heard about it?", and when I googled it ... I actually have heard about it, it's the Orden del Hacha from Catalonia (Orde de l'Atxa in the original Catalan). But ... there's something odd going on. Why the fuck in English they have translated like "Order or the hatchet"? You know, in Spanish and Catalan there's no really a difference between "Axe" and "Hatchet": There's a single word for them, "Hacha/Atxa". But in English, there's a difference. A Hatchet is a hand axe, pretty much the smallest one you can think of:
So It's pretty remarkable that whoever translated the name of the order to english first decided to use "Hatchet" and not "Axe". I'm pretty sure if this was a order of men warriors the name would have been pretty different. Specially when THIS was their coat of arms:
So dear academic-who-translated-this-first: Does that look like a hatchet to you, motherfucker?!?!?
Important inclusion I was not aware of, thank you very much friend. :)
Iâm going to be chuckling over âDoes this look like a hatchet to you, motherfucker?!?!?â for the rest of the day.
This is literally what people are talking about when they say AI will be used to mainstream widely held bigotry. LLMs are trained on frequency and probability -> straight relationships are more well represented in the dataset -> straight pronouns and terms become the "correct" normal.
This is a form of backdoor bigotry from both normative facts (there are more straight than gay relationships) and well represented bigoted beliefs (men are superior to women).
Combine this with the mass of people inclined to believe (and being encouraged to believe) that if AI says and does something it must be correct

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Once when I was in undergrad, someone described something as âproblematicâ in class and our professor was like, âThatâs cool, but âproblematicâ doesnât really mean anything. It means that the thing youâre describing has a problem, and in and of itself thatâs not bad. Art, especially, should always have problems, or else itâs not interesting and not art, either. It sounds like youâre trying to say that this is bad, but you donât want to say âbad.â Is that right?â
So from then on whenever one of us called something problematic, he would make us talk it out until we could name the âbadâ thing we were hinting at. In this particular class, 7/10 it was some type of oppression, and the remainder was like, âIâm uncomfortable because this is very new/confusing/pushing boundaries that made me feel safe.â
Once we stopped calling things âproblematicâ and stopping at that, class got way more interesting and... we all had to say, like, âthatâs racistâ or âthatâs misogynisticâ or âew capitalism grossâ out loud, which a lot of us had never done in a classroom before. Or we had to be like, âUhhh... Iâm not sure whatâs so bad?â and confront our own beliefs and that was maybe even more useful.
Anyway. Whenever I see the word problematic, I canât help but think of this professor being like, âGood starting point, now letâs get specific.â I think when we have to commit to saying âthatâs ___â it requires a lot more careful thought about the truth and impact and complexities of whatever weâre claiming. Sometimes there really is some bullshit afoot, and also sometimes itâs art, and it should be full of problems, because thatâs what art is.
passages that make you whisper "oh my god"
I think it's really funny how the practice of bleeping out profanity is not only completely ineffective as a censorship tool, it's had the opposite effect of creating an environment where it's ridiculously easy to edit apparent profanity into footage that doesn't actually contain it. Like you can just grab any audio or video clip and bleep out anything and people will automatically mentally insert profanity in there it fucking rules.
my favorite example of this is the count's song from sesame street where they censor the word "count"
We tried to warn you about the "adult content" bans. Now Kickstarter is starting that shit
"It must have serious value!"
Staight up sounds like obscenity law/Miller Test-type crap.
"Fetishized imagery intended to arouse" well it's a good thing oppressed and vulnerable communities are never fetishized.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
This is relevant to the convo
Epstein files discourse has me more convinced than ever that we need to be talking a lot less about "pedophiles" and talking a lot more about child sexual abuse.
I talked about how conservative authoritarians define "pedophilia" as "youth autonomy," but even among less overtly authoritarian communities, the spectre of The Pedophile is, at best, a distraction from the reality of CSA.
"Pedophiles" are a distinct, discrete type of person. They're Not Like Us, but also, they Could Be Anywhere. They're hiding in plain sight among us, lurking and sabotaging. Anyone could secretly one of them. They're queer, they're Jewish, they're vaguely foreign. They conspire. They're a cabal. They have secret signals. They're rich and powerful and secretly control governments, but they're also poor and dirty and hide in alleyways. They're sexually deviant. They're everywhere and nowhere, and you should constantly be on guard against anyone who might be one.
Child sexual abuse, on the other hand, is abuse. It's an action, not a type of person. Anyone can commit it, because it's an abuse of power, and all adults and many other children have power over all children. Any adult has the ability to sexually abuse a child, because every adult has the ability to wield power over any child. Child sexual abuse is part of the continuum of child abuse, which in turn is part of the continuum of abuse, which can be committed by anyone who has the power to commit it.
The Epstein clients are the most prosaic phenomenon in the world. Rich, powerful people trafficked powerless people to force the powerless people to serve them. Rich, powerful people got away with breaking laws. Rich, powerful people uses people as objects -- in this case, as sex objects, but by the same structural mechanisms by which they use people to clean their houses, pick their crops, and assemble widgets in their factories.
It's not A Secret Cabal Of Pedophiles Conspiratorially Running The Government. It's just kyriarchy working as intended. Absolutely, keep up the pressure to release the Epstein files and prove what we already know, but if you're using "pedophiles" in a sentence where "illuminati" would make sense, put down the conspiracy juice and pick up the youthlib juice instead.
Trump's name removed from Kennedy Center following court order: DOJ
A judge had given the administration until noon Saturday to remove the name.
The Justice Department filed a certification in federal court one hour before a judge's Saturday noon deadline that said President Donald Trump's name has been "removed" from "all physical signage on the Kennedy Center building and grounds."
The Trump administration had made a last-minute request to ask the court to step in and block the removal of Trumpâs name ahead of a deadline of midnight Friday.
A judge had given the Trump administration until noon Saturday to remove the name.
A photographer from AP News still got the shot >:]
âMusk talks about Mars as a lifeboat for humanity, which is among the very stupidest things that someone could say,â says Adam Becker, an astrophysicist and author of the book More Everything Forever, which outlines the messianic, sci-fi fantasies of the tech oligarchs. âThere are so many reasons why itâs such a bad idea, and this is not about, âOh, weâll never have the technology to live on Mars.â Thatâs not what Iâm saying. What Iâm saying is that Earth is always going to be a better option no matter what happens to Earth. Like, we could get hit with an asteroid the size of the one that killed off the dinosaurs, and Earth would still be more habitable. We could explode every single nuclear weapon, and Earth would still be more habitable. We could have the worst-case scenario for climate change, and Earth would still be more habitable. Any cursory examination of any of the facts about Mars makes it very clear.â
What Youâve Suspected Is True: Billionaires Are Not Like Us
I really like sci-fi stories where people have to go off and terraform a planet, or figure out how to rebuild civilization after some disaster, or ideally both. "The last ark-ship leaving Earth right before it becomes uninhabitable" sort of deal. But lately I've been coming around to this same idea, that it will always be more practical to try to save Earth than to try to start over elsewhere.
I was reading one story where the apocalypse was impossibly-rising oceans. Like, water is appearing from *waves hand* the Earth's crust or something, and literally all dry surface land on Earth is going to become underwater in X years. Part of the story was about a giant research project to invent FTL to send a few hundred humans to a nearby star which might have a habitable planet. You know what they were hoping to find? A planet with liquid water. Their plan was to descend from their starship and restart civilization using just the tools they brought with them, on a world with no life and no breathable air and the wrong gravity and the wrong temperate and the wrong sunlight and the wrong day-night cycle, just because it had liquid water. You know where else has liquid water? The flooded Earth you just abandoned. Instead of researching starship technology, you could have spent that time loading up all the same civilization-restarter tools into boats.
And this is really true of any futuristic apocalypse scenario. If you can terraform Mars to have a thick oxygen atmosphere, why not just do that to Earth? Even if you smash an ice comet into Earth and destroy basically everything, Earth will still be more habitable than Mars! It'll still have roughly the right atmospheric pressure, and magnetic field, and heat balance, and it'll still have whatever life the comet didn't kill... Same with a starshade to cool Venus. Same with excavating asteroids into city-stations. Same with abandoning Sol System entirely and heading to another star. If an ark-ship arrived in a new star system and found Earth-but-choked-by-climate-change, the crew would be ecstatic. They would never have thought to get that lucky. So why bother with the trip? Just stay and fix the damn Earth.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
i think the key difference between george lucasâs star wars and disneyâs star wars is that lucas is a man with an ideology. someone with a point of view, and all that entails. which comes with ideas of revolution, anti-imperialism, challenging the status quo, cultural appropriation and racist stereotypes. complex and contradictory ideas because thatâs how artists are: complex and complicated people. disney is not. disney is a corporation. a corporation canât have ideology, because ideology defeats the purpose of profit. and when the only thing you do is to turn on the movie manufacturing machine before you sit down and plan what ideas are you trying to convey to the audience, then your results are going to be washed out corporate garbage. and because when youâre a giant corporation who only cares about selling to the widest audience possible, you canât take sides. you canât decide on an idea. because you want to sell your product to people who are on the entire political spectrum. which results in movies without ideology, without purpose, without soul.
I have been looking for this post for years after I came across it and itâs finally here and I need to reblog this because it is absolutely and entirely accurate.
#as I always say: lucas was making a samurai film and a ww2 flying ace film and a western film and adding laser swords#because he fundamentally LIKED samurai films and dambusters films and westerns and 40âs adventure serials#but disney are making a âstar wars filmâ and adding nothing because it already had laser swords and they have nothing else to say#xerox of a xerox baybeeeee (via harrietvane)
in light of Leia's Force-insight abilities, I propose that the reason Han was so offended by Leia calling him a 'scruffy-looking nerf-herder' was because this was her pulling directly on his own self-image issues and doubts
this also implies that Tarkin was self-conscious about the way he smelled, Luke hated being reminded of how short he is, and that Darth Vader might have been wrestling with the idea that he's a literal attack dog leashed to Tarkin