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.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
basically my opinion on many many things is âyou should be allowed to do that and i should be allowed to be uncomfortable with it and the government and law should not be involved in this whatsoeverâ
It is a complete narrative about SecUnits on a Planetary Survey trying to communicate and keep their clients safe while dealing with the restrictions of their govmod.
IT IS ALSO A FULLY INTERACTIVE GAME OF MINESWEEPER.
The story is told BY PLAYING MINESWEEPER.
This fic is criminally underrated go look at it!!!
I saw a sign at a nearby village advertising a "veillĂŠe", a storytelling evening, which sounded intriguing, so I went out of curiosityâit turned out to be an old lady who had arranged a circle of chairs in her garden and prepared drinks, and who wanted to tell folk tales and stories from her youth. Apparently she was telling someone at the market the other day that she missed the ritual of the "veillĂŠe" from pre-television days, when people would gather in the evening and tell stories, and the people she was talking to were like, well let's do a veillĂŠe! And then she put up the sign.
About 15 people came, and she sat down and started telling us storiesâI loved the way she made everything sound like it had happened just yesterday and she was there, even tales she'd got from her grandmother, and the way she continually assumed we knew all the people she mentioned, and everyone spontaneously played along; she'd be like "And Martin, the bonesetterâyou know Martin," (everyone nodsâof course, Martin) "We never liked him much" and everyone nodded harder, our collective distaste for Martin now a shared cultural heritage of our tiny microcosm. She started with telling us the story of the communal bread oven in the village. The original oven was destroyed during the Revolution; people used to pay to use the local aristocrat's oven, but of course around 1789 both the aristocrat and his oven were disposed of in a glorious blaze of liberty, equality, and complete lack of foresight.
Then the villagers felt really daft for having destroyed a perfectly serviceable oven that they could have now started using for free. "But you know what things were like during the revolution." (Everyone nodded sagelyâwho among us hasn't demolished our one and only source of bread-baking equipment in a fit of revolutionary zeal?)
The village didn't have a bread oven for decades, people travelled to another village to make bread; and then in the 19th century the village council finally voted to build a new oven. It was a communal endeavour, everyone pitched in with some stones or tools or labour, and the oven was builtâbut it collapsed immediately after the construction was finished.
Consternation.
Not to be deterred, people re-built the oven, with even more effort and careâand the second one also collapsed.
People realised that something was amiss, and the village council convened. After a lot of serious discussion, during which no one so much as mentioned the possibility of a structural flaw, people reached the only logical conclusion: the drac had sabotaged their oven. Twice.
(The drac, in these parts, is the son of the devil.)
The logic here, I suppose, was that no one but the devil's own child would dare to stand between French people and their bread.
The next step was even more obvious: they passed around a hat to raise money, assuming the devilâs son was after a cash donation. But (and I'm skipping a few twists and turns of the story here) the son of the devil did not want money, he wanted half of every batch of bread, for as long as the village oven stood.
Consternation.
People simply could not afford to give away half of their bread, and were about to abandon the idea of having their own oven altogetherâbut then Saint Peter came to the rescue.
(In case you didn't know, Saint Peter happens to regularly visit this one tiny village in the French countryside to check that its inhabitants are doing okay and are not encountering oven issues.)
Saint Peter reminded them of one precious piece of information they had overlooked: holy water burns the devil.
People re-built the oven, for the third time. The son of the devil returned, to destroy it and/or claim his half of the first batchâbut on that day, the villagers had organised a grand communal spring cleaning, dousing every street and alley in the village with copious amounts of holy water.
The poor drac simply could not access the oven; every possible path scorched his feet for reasons he couldn't quite explain.
So he was standing there, smouldering gently and wondering what was going on, when some passing tramp seemed to take pity on him, pointed at his satchel and told him to turn himself into a rat and jump in there, and the tramp would carry him where he wished to go. The devil's son, probably a bit frazzled at this point, agreed without much thought, became a rat and jumped in the satchel, and of course that's the point when everyone in the village sprang from the shadows, wielding sticks, shovels, pans, and started beating the devil's son senseless. (Old lady, calmly: "You could hear his bones crack.")
So the son of Satan slithered back to Hell and never returned to destroy the village oven againâand the spring cleaning tradition endured; the streets were washed with holy water once a year after that, both to commemorate this glorious day of civic resistance when the village absolutely bodied the devil's offspring and to maintain basic oven safety standards.
(Old lady: "But we don't bother anymore⌠That's too bad.")
She told us five stories, most of them artfully blending actual local events or anecdotes from her youth with folk tale elements, it was so delightful. She thanked us for coming and said she'd love to do this again sometime. I went home reflecting that listening to an old lady happily tell stories of dubious historical veracity involving the Revolution, property damage, demonic mischief and baffling municipal decision-making is literally my ideal Saturday night activity.
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.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
I actually had some unexpected free time today so I was able to create this a lot faster than I expected.Â
It isnât perfect, but following the initial post I assigned each timezone one sun deity, so travelers know who they might pray to while exploring the world.
This was a lot of fun to create and to research mythologies from across the world, and I think I learned a couple of things doing so!
starts talking about my emotional state with 2 degrees of abstraction instead of 7 and the sniper across the street who i pay to keep me in line fires a warning shot thru my little hoop earring
When I see a video of a cat minding its own business with nothing else going on I unmute immediately cause I know that mf is about to make a funny noise
Okay, after a night's sleep, I have decided that yeah, there is value in responding to this absolutely steaming pile of ignorant, self-centered, self-important, anti-intellectual, b.s.
It looks like a number of people in the notes were swayed, at least to some degree, by this garbage, so I think it is worth trying to show why it is nonsense.
(Also it's possible I'm still spoiling for a fight after being denied an evidentiary hearing on Friday.)
I'm not reblogging the post because folks don't need a self-aggrandizing tantrum on their dash, but I do think it is worth taking a look for yourself, in order to practice your analytical skills. Some questions to consider as you read:
(1) What is OP saying in her original post? What claims is she making?
(2) How, if at all, does the poster respond to claims OP made? What claims is the poster saying that OP made? Do these match what OP actually said? If not, (a) what techniques does the poster use to transform what OP said into the claims the poster is claiming OP made? (b) What rhetorical purpose does it serve for the poster to warp OP's claims?
(3) What affirmative claims is the poster making? What evidence or arguments do they provide to support their claims? Do they explore any of the specifics or real world implications of their claims? If not, what real world implications of their claims can you think of?
(3) What other rhetorical techniques does the poster use to bolster their argument? Do these techniques actually enhance and support the substance of their argument?
(4) Relatedly, how does the poster play into the biases of their assumed audience (tumblr users with generally progressive policies). What claims do they make to play into those biases? What evidence or argument, if any, do they make to support those claims? Are these claims by the poster reasonably related to the claims made by OP?
Now, let's explore their response in detail!
(Also obviously don't harass the poster, and I would recommend not directly engaging with them at all. Harassment is vile and makes you far worse than them. And earnest engagement is unlikely to be productive - the OP tried to engage with them politely (and even offered to help) in the notes of poster's original post. In response, the poster (1) implied that OP is an obsessive rude busybody. (2) Told OP to "Shhhhh. Chill." (in response to (paraphrased), 'hey, the advice someone else gave you is probably a waste of time and effort'). (3) And finally, after condescendingly telling OP, "Breathe. Practice radical acceptance. Know that I am here on the other side of the internet, flagrantly wasting my effort and thinking of you every second of that time," proceeded to prove that they were, in fact, "thinking of [OP] every second of that time" by searching OP's blog to find this post by OP and dumping this Arrested-Development-level demand to be taken seriously in the reblogs.)
(All of which is to say: hi, poster who was "being vagueposted about." I assume you are reading this, because you demonstrably don't have the good sense to block and move on. I'm not going to block you in advance, because I think you have the right to make your own terrible decisions, and I suspect any response you make is going to be *very* funny. See you in the notes!)
So, let's go through the poster's response, paragraph by paragraph.
They begin by doubling down on the stance that, "any sufficiently deep enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor." This, they say, is their defense of that stance. Let's see how it goes - but first, I think it's worth remembering, OP's original post is literally a single sentence long.
OP's claim, paraphrased, that the claim that "any sufficiently deep enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor" is incorrect and anti-intellectual. If we read the OP's tags, she clarifies that enthusiasm is valuable, but different from expertise.
The poster starts their defense with a long...explanation that the structure of their claim was a reference to the Arthur C Clarke's third "law" (read: sci-fi fiction adage).
*deep breath*
Ok. I'm a big a fan of wordplay as the next person. And I know from personal experience that it can be really frustrating to do some fun wordplay to make a point, and then get misinterpreted here on tumblr.com.
But. The wordplay has to make a point for it to be relevant to your defense. OP's claim wasn't "this poster did a bad job with the linguistic structure of this sentence and is not familiar with classic sci-fi." How does the "rhetorical structure" of the poster's claim support the substance of their claim???
It doesn't, is the answer. The poster explicitly asks this question later down, but then they never actually answer it. Instead, the rhetorical effect of this whole digression is just to throw out surface level references to things (Arthur C Clarke! "AI"!) that might make the poster sound more thoughtful and knowledgeable. It also creates distance from OP's actual point - as the post continues, the poster has to remind us what they're talking about. This gives the poster more control over the narrative, over what claims are under discussion.
Which leads to the poster's next paragraph: the unanswered question of why the poster structured their claim to resemble a sci-fi author's famous quote, and a baseless attack on OP.
And I think it is worth really lingering on this attack on OP. The poster claims, OP perhaps is "misreading or misinterpreting" the poster's point. But what on earth is the poster talking about? OP literally just quoted the poster's exact words and then said that they think this is anti-intellectual. What "misreading or misinterpreting" is being done?
No. Instead, this attack rhetorically sets up the poster's next couple paragraphs: not actually defending their claim as OP originally quoted, but reinterpreting their own words, providing their own special unique meaning that they will then proceed to use for the rest of the post. They are redrawing the rhetorical bounds of the conversation. Rather than defending their stance, they are redefining their stance so that it matches the defense they now want to make.
(Which is still bad. It's a bad defense and it makes me very angry.)
The poster proceeds to define "academic rigor" in a way that just means, "enthusiasm." Notice how no part of their definition includes things like critical thinking skills, building up a knowledge base, testing ideas, receiving criticism (wow I wonder why), or any expertise or action to build up and test that expertise. It's just what a person "cares very much about," how much "curiosity" they have; some inherent quality someone who "NEEDS to know." (Also hit the bell for another surface level reference - this time to Herodotus - to make the poster sound more knowledgeable.) If you actually read the poster's definition, it is entirely "idk vibes i guess."
Now, having defined "academic rigor" as enthusiasm, they successfully declare that enthusiasm is a necessary precondition of enthusiasm.
And then, we get the best paragraph of this entire tantrum of a post: "Any sufficiently deep enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor. It's like a fractal -- the closer you look, the more complicated it gets." No only is this another attempted surface level reference, this time to fractals, but just. What is this supposed to mean. At a glance, it seems like it kind of follows from the last paragraph - maybe, the more an enthusiast looks at something, the more there is to know? But the closer you look at this sentence, the more nonsensical it gets. What does things getting more complicated the more you look at them have to do with academic rigor (either a real definition or the poster's enthusiasm-based definition)? More importantly, what does it have to do with proving the point - that enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor? (You might as well say, "the further you fall down the rabbit hole, the deeper you realize it goes," except then more people would realize you are expressing straight conspiracist reasoning oops.)
Now, several paragraphs in and having firmly taken control of the rhetorical boundaries of the argument, the poster finally decides to provide some context to the original statement (and needlessly insult OP for trying to be helpful again).
The poster correctly quotes relevant parts of the discussion (although mischaracterizes their own responses as "polite" instead of "incredibly condescending and rude"). However, the poster then immediately characterizes OP's response as "muddied." Because words have objective meanings, however, we do not need to accept this characterization. OP expressed her argument very clearly. Rather, it is the the poster who claimed that OP was making an argument that she was not, which we can paraphrase as, 'passion and capacity for learning are limited to formal education at academic institutions.' It would be convenient for the poster if OP was making this argument, because it could be easy to argue against. But since OP clearly stated that she does not believe this clearly incorrect thing that the poster made up in her head, the poster claims that her response was "muddied."
The poster emphasizes this false claim in the next few paragraphs. They say, "to me she seems to be arguing that one MUST (?) receive formal training at an academic institution ("academic training" "trained expertise") in order to achieve that level of rigor." But OP simply doesn't say that. You can look at the reply the poster quoted, it doesn't say what the poster says it does.
Now, this is speculation on my part, but I think the poster really believes that OP is saying 'passion and capacity for learning are limited to formal education at academic institutions.' I think they believe this because its how they feel when they hear the (correct) statement that enthusiasm does not equal expertise. The poster repeatedly says that they think that enthusiasm for learning is the same as expertise. They throw a tantrum after receiving the slightest, politest, disagreement. They think someone giving them advice that hey, maybe its a good idea to get a basic foundation of knowledge before cold-emailing experts is a busybody who is obsessed with lecturing them. The poster simply, demonstrably, doesn't believe expertise is real, and refuses to admit that someone else might know more or better than them. If they "care very much about getting it right," how dare you say they aren't as good as anyone with "academic training," fuck you very much you elitist jerk.
This sense is emphasized by their next paragraph. First, they shift the rhetoric framework of the conversation again. The actual claim the poster says they are defending is that "any sufficiently Deep Enthusiasm is indistinguishable from Academic Rigor" (emphasis added). Now, they are claiming that OP means that no one outside of an academic context "has the capacity to learn what rigor means in their field." These are very different claims, but the poster shits between them seamlessly.
Second, they just completely misunderstand what academic rigor is. I'm sorry, you can read every book and article and (*sigh* dear god) TED talk in the world, that doesn't make you an expert, and that's not academic rigor. A large part of academic rigor is in how you critically engage with what you read. Otherwise you just end up, at best, with a bunch of shallow facts that you can "whip out at dinner parties to impress [your] acquaintances" or sprinkle as references in arguments on tumblr to make you sound smarter.
But no, the poster confirms in the next paragraph, you don't need critical thinking or training or people who will tell you that you are wrong. All you need is the information. And if you disagree, you are arguing in favor of "the ivory tower." (Take a drink.)
In the next two paragraphs, the poster pays lip service to the idea that sure, it's easier to learn in academia. But even then, they imply that somehow that's the easy route, that good learning environments create weak men, that people who are self-taught are the ones who are actually building up the critical thinking skills because someone doesn't just "tell them the answer."
Then, before the readers have a chance to absorb, wait, did you really just say that academia is really just having someone either tell you the answer or where to look for the answer and therefore unsuitable for "sincerely love to learn," (because you are, in fact, anti-intellectual), the poster then throws in a bunch of shallow buzz phrases about how higher education isn't available to a lot of people.
And I say these are just shallow buzz phrases for two reasons. First, the poster never actually engages with this lack of access. It's just sprinkled in, like the references to Arthur C Clarke and Herodotus. (For example, no, actually, "any sufficiently MOTIVATED person" can't actually access all this information that is online. You need a stable internet connection, devices to allow you to make use of that connection, to speak or read the language those materials are published in, enough time and sleep and food and goddam shelter.)
Second, this doesn't actually have anything to do with the actual claim that the poster is supposedly defending. Remember that? Remember the position the poster is arguing for? "Any sufficiently deep enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor." How does, "some people can't go to college" support that claim, specifically?
It doesn't, which is why the poster's next paragraph instead claims that OP is arguing that "those people do not have the ability to hold themselves to a rigorous standard of learning."
Which just.
Fuck you?
Because yeah, that would be a shitty opinion to hold! And you are the only person raising it! You are explicitly making the claim - fuck, perpetrating the anti-intellectual worldview - that anyone who suggests "caring about something does not inherently equal subject matter expertise" is an elitist who thinks that everyone else, ordinary people, real Americans, are stupid.
I'm gong to be honest, this is the part of the poster's claims that made me mad enough to respond.The notes include people agreeing that academics and "experts" are actually pretty elitist, aren't they, and they deserve to be "taken down a few pegs," that suggesting that you need a baseline level of knowledge or vocabulary before you can engage deeply with a subject is "gatekeeping."
The U.S.'s institutions are crumbling as they are dismantled by people that are making these exact same arguments. There is no meaningful difference in the reasoning of the poster's argument here, and the argument that "alternative medicine" hacks who never completed their medical training have sufficient credentials to run goverment agencies, and that if you bring up their lack of credentials, well, that just proves what an elitist you are.
The "worldview" the poster does not accept - is telling you not to accept - is the idea that expertise exists at all.
And because that is an incorrect and harmful worldview, the poster has to use a bunch of rhetorical tricks to hide what they are doing. And then to sell it, they throw in a bunch of words to stir up the audience's preconceptions and biases. OP's claim (again, that enthusiasm and academic rigor are not equivalent) is "racist and imperialist." Why? Don't worry about it. Something something college is expensive and inaccessible to a lot of people. All you need to remember is that these ivory-tower academics are The Bad Thing.
*deep breath*
Anyway, knowing we need a laugh to bring the mood back up, the poster then says someone on reddit criticizing your argument is an "informal version[] of the peer-review process." Besides betraying a deep ignorance of the nature of peer-review (I guess even knowing how academic processes work is also elitist?), I think this means that the poster has to be cool with my post here, right? Because I'm just doing peer review? (Because also, just to be clear: "the academic structure of the peer review is a formalized process of the very human impulse to gleefully tell other humans when theyâve stuck their foot in their mouth." No. This is just. No.)
Next, more misstating OP's original claim. The poster says, "An institution of formal learning is not a prerequisite to pursue and absorb information," which OP already agreed with in the comments of the poster's original post.
In support of this claim that no one is arguing with, the poster than makes up a "guy at the model airplane shop who seems to know absolutely everything that has ever been known about WWII planes," and asks, "why donât we acknowledge him as a legitimate expert?" The poster implies that this is because this guy is autistic and OP is a bigot.
But the real answer is simpler:
Unless you are referring to something you chose not to link for some reason, he's made up. He's a made up guy in your brain. And OP never said anything about him, so it's really weird for you to criticize OP for not sufficiently praising him as an expert. Fanfic isn't reality.
To the extent we are talking about real phenomenons - who do you mean by "we" and what do you mean by "acknowledge him as a legitimate expert"? There are lots of people with legitimate expertise, and in my experience, they often are recognized as such. And I don't know where you live, but outside of revenge-fantasies of conservative pundits and the people who are mislead by them, most academic experts aren't exactly exhausted and prestige and praise.
'Knowing a lot about a subject' is not the same as academic rigor. This isn't a criticism or insult to people who know a lot of things, despite your weird, self-centered hang-ups. Let me be clear here, actually: I am not an academic. I am a lawyer. I know a lot about the law in the areas I practice in. I do not practice the law "with academic rigor" because that's not really meaningful. I also like to constantly learn more about the law, including in many areas I don't practice in. I am not an expert in those areas. Just as an academic who studies the law and legal practice would not necessarily be good at actually practicing the law, my enthusiasm does not mean I have academic expertise (and my academic training is rather rusty, this many years out). This is normal? My ego is not threatened by acknowledging different kinds of expertise and knowledge exist?
And perhaps most to the point - "seems to know absolutely everything that has ever been known about WWII planes." "Seems to." An important part of academia - part of what makes it rigorous, if you will - is that you actually have to prove your expertise to other experts. They are then "recognized" as experts because there is a process the public can usually trust that they don't just "seem to" know what they are talking about. If you are talking to an amateur enthusiast - how do you know you they actually have the expertise they claim to have? Because I know of some guys who are really enthusiastic about the, claim to be experts, and have a lot of strong opinions about how they have reclaimed their Sovereign Identity by not capitalizing the letters in their name.
I agree with the poster's final paragraph. I love learning. But I can't see this as anything other than a manipulative postscript, a rhetorical trick of ending on a point of agreement and mutual enthusiasm. By a person - and I can't emphasize this enough - who refused assistance in learning and threw an enormous tantrum because someone suggested hey, maybe its a good idea to get a basic foundation of knowledge before cold-emailing experts.
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.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
i have a stupid video going viral on tiktok right now and i keep getting messaged by viral marketing accounts and fucking with them is fun but this is killing me
As someone who was hella confused about a question an anon asked few days ago that why lwj wasn't there for wwx in his previous life, I did some research and found few details and this is never that lwj was bounded by laws of his sect or his propriety. I would ask you to please post this.
one moral of mdzs is to not forcibly adhere to societal expectations or get caught up in what others think of you; rather, accept that everyone is an individual/idiosyncratic. this aligns w/ 1 interpretation of ć 为 wuweiâa daoist conceptâwhich is to act as comes naturally to you. when your behavior is influenced by outside pressures dictating how you are "supposed to" or "expected to" behave, that's not ć 为 wuwei. that becomes behavior with intention, and that intentionality (or 为) causes you to act in a way that is counter to your most natural self. This is what plays out in lwj's character development, because I think he adheres to a different interpretation of ć 为 wuwei during wwx's first life (I will refer to him as first-life lwj). The other interpretation of ć 为 wuwei I'm referring to is "non-action," ie not interfering with human affairs or secular matters. eg disputes, wars. this is why the quintessential (and even ideal) daoist is a hermit secluding themselves from society in the mountains. hence, bssr. First-life lwj's (non)action is his adherence to one interpretation of daoist morality. his name ĺżćş wangji is itself a daoist term analogous to ć 为 wuwei. it's a reminder not to act with intention, not to manipulate situations for personal interests (as an aside, to quickly address takes where people view first-life lwj as "not moral" because he doesn't actively intervene to help wwx save the wensâNo. This concept stems from an issue of applying western morality to a character adhering to specific eastern morals). We can assume lwj has always (naturally) been above involving himself in petty disputes. enter wwx, who flies in the face of all that. wwx is the embodiment of doing what comes naturally to him (for the most part). suddenly, lwj can't stop himself from acting and getting involved like when he fights wwx on the rooftop, when he kisses him on mt baifeng. and lwj is angry with himself when it happens, because even these actions go against his understanding of ć 为 wuweiâbut those are all part of his most natural self, which he is holding backcut to when wwx returns. Then we see the stark difference between 1st- & 2nd-life lwj. He has no qualms about taking wwx back, or when he acts, because these actions are what comes naturally to him. His understanding of ć 为 wuwei has evolved from "non-action" to "effortless action." This is not to say self-restraint can't be natural to lwj. In many ways it is. But before, lwj was holding himself back from certain actions due to outside forces. Now, if he holds back, it's not because he has toâit's because he wants to, and chooses to for himself.
Thank you for this context, and this makes sense from my own fledgling understanding of Taoism and how it's portrayed by mxtx in her novels. I still have to disagree though. You are basing your understanding of how this concept plays into Lan Wangji's character off of the mistaken idea that Lan Wangji did not do anything in Wei Wuxian's first life and, thus, experienced a change from his death that is expressed in Wei Wuxian's second life.
I am saying this is wrong.
Lan Wangji did not believe in non-intervention in Wei Wuxian's first life, and we aren't given any indication that this is the case unless one is taking his disdain for politics and the immorality of his fellow cultivators into account. Lan Wangji not fucking with these things does not mean that he cut himself off from the world. There is a reason he's called Hanguang-jun, a title he earned from the people for his intervention in their issues that other cultivators and cultivation clans routinely ignored. He was given this title during Wei Wuxian's first life, during the war in fact, and we are shown the origins of this behavior through the Lotus Seed Pod Extra. And while Wei Wuxian was the catalyst for this event, to say that Lan Wangji believed in non-intervention before this moment would be like arguing that Wei Wuxian was a non-interventionalist before he married Lan Wangji and decided to "go where the chaos was" with him.
In Wei Wuxian's first life, Lan Wangji:
helped farmers with the ghost making mischief
defended his home when the other Lan cultivators stood down to the Wen invasion
defended Mianmian when the other cultivators shied away from her, even knocking back a Lan outer disciple who tried to go around him to hand her over to Wen Chao
participated in a war
made time to help the common people during said war, earning his title
physically defended Wei Wuxian against Jin Zixuan's attack during the Phoenix Mountain hunt
spoke up for Wei Wuxian during the Jin banquet after Wei Wuxian leaves to find Wen Ning
publicly spoke up for Wei Wuxian during the emergency conference after the liberation of the Qiongqi Path labor camp, even though he is said to rarely attend
helped Wei Wuxian restore Wen Ning's conscience
publicly spoke in defense of the Wen siblings during their sham trial
everything he did during Nightless City and its aftermath
Lan Wangji isn't upset at himself for kissing Wei Wuxian because it goes against some idea of "non-interventionalism;" he's upset because he sees himself as falling into the same behavior that his father may have been engaged in that trapped his mother. We know this because he confesses these feelings to Lan Xichen! And then Lan Xichen tells us the story of his parents through Wei Wuxian! The kiss itself is not the problem! Worldly desires are not his problem!!!
Lan Wangji has been just as much an embodiment of "effortless action" as Wei Wuxian has, but because he continues to adhere to a set of personal behaviors that were ingrained in him in childhood, fandom takes that as "he must be strictly bound by x thing." He's not. Fandom also thinks that because Wei Wuxian still died in the end and no character acknowledges how Lan Wangji helped him in his first life, that "must" mean that Lan Wangji didn't do enough/didn't do anything at all. This is also not true. Lan Wangji lives his life how he wants to, always has from the time he was young, and he has always wanted to help those in need when he can, both loved ones and strangers alike. His (in)action is not the reason why Wei Wuxian died any more than Wei Wuxian's own actions are the reason why he died. The cultivation world, 98% of all individuals in it including most of the named characters, were corrupt. Expecting a single person to be able to change the course of this story lest it be regarded as him "not having tried" is nonsensical.
Instead of arguing that "Lan Wangji had xyz reason why he didn't actually help," why don't we try discussing why 98% of the cast championed genocide and how placing their sins on the back of one (1) person for not stopping it absolves them of their own willful actions in gleefully slaughtering an entire clan for existing.
Agreed, however what I meant is lwj couldn't intervene in wwx's life in wwx's previous life because he was not needed, not wanted by wwx. He cannot force his help on someone who willingly refused that again & again, even when he tried to help, tried to intervene, tried asking wwx to come back to gusu with him again and again. Lan wangji bounded by laws and everything is not true too because otherwise he wouldn't have gone against his clan at the ripe age of 6. He wanted to be there for wwx but he could not because his help,his support was not needed by wwx. Also he defended wwx, took stand for wen siblings when no one did, so it makes no sense for people who claim that lwj was not as righteous as wwx. He was able to stand where he could provide his help, not when his help gets rejected again and again. A clear example is how lwj had gone to jiangling to support wwx but they ended up arguing. In wwx's second life lwj could stand by wwx's side because wwx is not refusing his help like he did in his previous life.
I somewhat agree with this on the premise of Lan Wangji cannot offer what wasnât asked for, but also, did Wei Wuxian never need or want help? Or did they both just realize that it was a dead-end situation that adding one more individual to wouldnât change (their conversation in the Burial Mounds)? Wei Wuxian never refused help offered or else Lan Wangji would have never seen the Burial Mounds settlement, but there was no help that could have been offered that would have redeemed the situation unless it was forcefully implanting everyone else with a moral compass.
On top of that, âcome back to Gusuâ was not about helping with the Wen remnants situation, and at no point after Wei Wuxian is exiled from the cultivation world does Lan Wangji bring that up (he only even ever brings it up like twice; fandom overblows how often he asks). Lan Wangji asks for Wei Wuxian to follow him back to Gusu because he knows that something is wrong with Wei Wuxian but doesnât know what. He doesnât ask in Wei Wuxianâs second life because 1) the circumstances are completely changed and Wei Wuxian had nothing to hide that would prevent him from taking up Lan Wangjiâs offer, and 2) he already had an inkling of what was wrong with Wei Wuxian during the manâs first life, and that problem has now been annulled. Literally the only thing that changes their dynamic from Wei Wuxianâs first life to his second is that the circumstances are different, not that either of the characters, themselves, have changed.
use overdrive, libby, hoopla, cloudlibrary, and kanopy instead of amazon and audible.
use firefox instead of chrome or opera (both are made with chromium, which blocks functionality for ad-blockers. firefox isn't based on chromium).
use mega or proton drive instead of google drive.
get rid of bloatware
use libreoffice instead of microsoft office suite
use vetted sites on r/FREEMEDIAHECKYEAH for free movies, books, games, etc.
use trakt or letterboxd instead of imdb.
use storygraph instead of goodreads.
use darkpatterns to find mobile game with no ads or microtransactions
use ground news to read unbiased news and find blind spots in news stories.
use mediahuman or cobalt to download music, or support your favorite artists directly through bandcamp
make youtube bearable by using mtube, newpipe, or the unhook extension on chrome, firefox, or microsoft edge
use search for a cause or ecosia to support the environment instead of google
use thriftbooks to buy new or used books (they also have manga, textbooks, home goods, CDs, DVDs, and blurays)
use flashpoint to play archived online flash games
find books, movies, games, etc. on the internet archive! for starters, here's a bunch of David Attenborough documentaries and all of the Animorphs books
burn your music onto cds
use pdf24 (available online or as a desktop app) instead of adobe
use unroll.me to clean your email inboxes
use thunderbird, mailfence, countermail, edison mail, tuta, or proton mail instead of gmail
remove bloatware on windows PC, macOS, and iOS X
remove bloatware on samsung X
use pixelfed instead of instagram or meta
use NCH suite for free software like a file converter, image editor, video editors, pdf editor, etc.
feel free to add more alternatives, resources or advice in the reblogs or replies, and i'll add them to the main post <3
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.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
having anti punitive justice morals sucks because you want to say "man that guy sucks he should get hit with hammers until he dies" but you also want to make it clear you don't think anyone should be put in charge of the 'hit people with hammers until they die" machine.
2087
baratheonpilled
blakekathryn
izzy806
germansingergirl
