Impy

i HATE self-censorship for a lot of reasons, but being in crisis work makes it even more frustrating. who are you censoring for? like i am being so fr, WHO are you censoring for? have you even thought it through? people who have been raped know that they have been raped. if someone attempts suicide or is grieving someone who did, saying "sewer slide" isn't going to protect them from any of the feelings. a murder victim's family isn't going to feel better bc you said "unalived" instead of murdered. if anything, it's just extremely invalidating and othering. it's saying "what happened to you is so bad that i won't even say the word," which is NOT trauma-informed care. you are not protecting survivors/victims when you self-censor. the ONLY things you protect when you self-censor are the puritanical ideologies that are being encouraged by rich fascists who want your money and obedience

can you talk abt him not telling sj as well as him ignoring lbh's abuse?

what's your take on that? /gen

yeah sure! tho my pedant ass is a bit like 'ehhh what are we counting as flaws exactly' but I'll address the two points you brought up. WARNING THIS POST IS VERY LONG

not telling sj: I'll be so honest with you I hold this one as much or more against sj than I do yqy. I think there is no evidence in the text that sj ever asked yqy to explain himself on why he didn't come back for him again after the first time, and I don't believe he ever did. I think this because I don't think sj thought he had any reason to keep asking; as far as he was concerned, he knew the full story, which was that yqy didn't come back for him because he wasn't worth coming back for. we as the audience know that sj didn't have the full story and that he would feel very differently about things if he knew, so we want him to ask, just like we want yqy to confess, but sj truly had no impetus to think he was missing anything. of course, since sj had no impetus to think he was missing anything, I also don't mean to say that I blame sj for not asking - I'm only clarifying that I don't agree with the interpretation that sj was desperate for yqy to explain himself while yqy deliberately refused to give him anything for years on end.

likewise, I don't think yqy had any reason to think he was hurting sj more by not explaining himself. I think yqy wanted to tell sj why he took so long, but I also think that he thinks this would be an act of selfishness on yqy's part, an avoidance of responsibility and fault. as far as yqy is concerned, sj spent three years in the Qiu household until he hit his breaking point, and that's yqy's fault. it's doubly yqy's fault, because it's yqy's fault that he ended up there in the first place, and it's yqy's fault that he failed to come back sooner. from yqy's point of view, what he went through does not excuse what sj went through for three years. sj tells yqy that the reason sj was bought by the Qius was because yqy was too impulsive; after this, the reason yqy was delayed was also because yqy was too impulsive. his failure is a direct failure to fulfill sj's instructions to him. to yqy, explaining himself doesn't make himself look better or show sj how much he cares about him in any way. he doesn't think sj would forgive him if he told him. he wants to tell sj because he wants to be close with sj again.

yqy is the one who wants to tell sj what happened to him and yqy is the one who wants to go back to the people they used to be and the relationship they used to have. sqq considers yq dead and wants sj dead. yqy is spending most of the time waiting for any sign of permission or indication that sqq might be amenable to talking about the past, or talking more at all, and is the one who gently presses to try to see if sj will let him say 'Xiao-Jiu,' if he will be permitted to be 'Qi-ge' again. sj hates this, because he wants to escape that version of himself completely.

so if yqy is the one who wanted to say it, then why didn't he? why not say it from the very beginning?

well this is kind of like saying sj should have told everyone at the trial that he was abused by qjl. although there are also people who hold that opinion. on both counts: I think it is honestly really humanly normal to physically not be able to bring yourself to say these things out loud on the spot. certainly especially so in svsss where virtually everyone has some issues with articulating their feelings in the first place, much much moreso when the experience was THAT traumatizing. and on top of that, for yqy in that moment, his experience in the Caves 1. was less than a year prior 2. directly taught him that no one will listen to his feelings. voicing his pain won't lead to help. screaming is futile. his wants and emotions won't be answered even if he begs.

it's probably hard for yqy to verbalize his emotions or suffering at all. it's especially hard when sj clearly flags that he's not interested in listening.

at their reunion, sj asks for his reason, yqy apologizes, and sj strikes down his apology. after that first conversation, we see yqy try to bring up what happened to him with Xuan Su three more times. the first time was in the Ling Xi Caves. to paraphrase, he tells sj, "I've been here before," and sj replies, "who cares?!" in this scene, this slight rejection was enough to put yqy off completely from pushing the subject. as the scene goes on, yqy is progressively less and less able to speak at all, and is physically trembling by the end. yqy is literally at the scene of his trauma. this is like asking sj to instigate a calm and productive recounting of events about what qjl did to him while sitting on the floor of qjl's study. in spite of this, yqy actually did try to broach the subject at the start.

the other two times are his two resolutions in timeline. in pidw, he tries to tell sj to draw Xuan Su. sj tells him off, but this time, yqy tries to push through- only for sj to literally shout him down when he says 'Xiao-Jiu.' after this, yqy goes completely silent. I think the book described it something like 'it was as if all the courage he mustered up was shattered.' he does not speak again, at all, for the remainder of the scene.

the only scene in which sj is the one who instigates the topic is that first conversation at their reunion. in both of the above scenes, yqy tries to bring it up, only to be deterred because sj actively shuts him down from continuing. for yqy, this is clearly something that requires a great deal of courage, and he genuinely tries very hard to get to the starting point, but buffeting him back down to silence is very, very easy. yqy wants to confess to sj, and tries to instigate this, and fails, repeatedly, because sj does not give him the permission and forgiveness yqy feels he needs to confess.

the third time, of course, is in svsss, when he actually confesses to sqq. this is after three book's worth of sy treating him with clear amicability, trust, and respect. sy listens to him without rebuffing him, and yqy is able to say everything. if the reason yqy never told sj why he didn't come back for him had only been because yqy wanted to keep it from him, to the point that he deflected even if sj asked many times over the years, to the point that he wouldn't tell sj even when sj was effectively on his death bed, why, then, could he freely tell sy and make no attempt to hide it at all?

to me, calling yqy's struggles with speaking his feelings a 'flaw' is much like calling sj's fear of men a 'flaw.' both of these things do have very tangible negative impacts on their interpersonal relationships. at the same time, calling sj's fear of men a 'character flaw' would feel kinda victim blame-y, no? I think 'flaw' comes with a connotation that feels like, 'the problem with this problem is that it causes harm to other people, and the person who has this problem is at fault for not fixing it,' so it feels kind of wrong as a descriptor to either of these things for the same reason, to me. both of them feel like deeply ingrained physiological responses, very deep-seated fears that can't be easily willed away. the only way to 'fix' them is to give them a great deal of support over a great deal of time. deriding or punishing them for these traits would not make them better.

ignoring lbh's abuse: yqy does not ignore it. yqy openly disapproves of lbh's abuse in the very first scene we see when sy wakes up in the world of pidw. the way this conversation goes suggests to me that yqy is already approaching this as an old, well-trodden argument. he has already told sqq to be kinder to his disciple. even in the extra chapters, in the Water Prison, yqy tells sj that he was the one in the wrong to treat lbh the way he did.

even so, I think it's fair to criticize yqy on this point. he might have argued with sqq about it, but it's clear he didn't punish sqq, strip sqq of his authority, intervene by scolding Ming Fan and sqq's other disciples himself, or remove lbh from the situation. yqy was Sect Leader, and he theoretically had these or perhaps other options available to him. he was not oblivious to what was happening, and he did disapprove--but he didn't 'overstep.'

this is just my personal 'shortest path between A and B' interpretation, but I think yqy's mentality as something of a child gang leader suited certain aspects of the framework of CQMS's clannish structure and values very very well. CQMS highly values relationships within the same generation across different peaks, which is how they've remained a single group across many generations despite hosting a wide breadth of very very different paths and cultures. yqy, in particular, is the eldest shixiong to all of the other Peak Lords. I think on some level he probably views this group as his new 'gang,' thus also views them as his family and responsibility, and under most circumstances he would probably prioritize this group first above all others. this also goes as an explanation for how sqh kept his post after letting demons in to kill thousands of people at the IAC.

either alternatively or additionally, and I do mean this as a criticism: he probably really is too nice. he's generally lenient. he honestly seems pretty fond of rowdy, disruptive personalities. he's not exactly running a tight ship, and sqq isn't the only Peak Lord whose idiosyncrasies make other Peak Lords' jobs harder.

but, of course, when it comes to sqq in particular, there is another added layer which he himself states: he feels he has no right to rebuke sqq. until and unless sqq grants yqy redemption, he has no leg to stand on acting like he's sqq's better and sqq has to listen to his admonishments, because yqy failed him too deeply - and, again, yqy's failure was in something sj saw in him and directly advised him to improve. on a certain level, yqy truly trusts and believes in sj's judgment, at least the judgment he had once. this is a very... um, fraught and less than ideal dynamic when yqy is technically the one with more authority between them, to say the least. it at least doesn't stop yqy from trying.

"yqy is trying" is really my fundamental core read of his character. more than almost anyone else in svsss, I think yqy is really almost always just trying to do the right thing. sometimes he fails. sometimes, like with the clannishness, his idea of what 'the right thing' entails is colored heavily by where he came from and what he has been taught, and I don't necessarily agree with it. sometimes there are a lot of different factors he's trying to juggle, and he doesn't do a good job of it. but it makes me sad when people frame his fumbling but earnest attempts as more malicious, untrustworthy, and harmful than the like, many many other characters in svsss who don't even really give a shit about doing the right thing half the time.

And I'm just imagining that MBJ gets hit with a curse or pollen that not only works as a truth serum but compells him to speak and literally the only thing that comes out is just a torrent of praise and thirst for ShangQinghua

Someonehas him hoping to make him spill secrets about Luo Binghe and Mobei is just sat there saying shit like: "Shang Qinghua could step on me and I'd thank him"

(tags via @angrybi-king)

OP: Why couldn’t traditional Chinese Yinpiao银票/silver drafts be forged if they were merely slips of paper? (cr大明宝钞，渐越)

Traditional Chinese yinpiao/silver drafts were paper vouchers issued by private banks starting from the Song Dynasty(960–1279). People could exchange these slips for physical silver at bank branches across the country.

Silver drafts were made in multiple copies with matching serrated seal edges. One copy went to the customer and others stayed at the bank. All edges had to fit perfectly together to withdraw silver. The unique split edge marks were almost impossible to copy.

This mechanism is known as qifeng骑缝 (split-joint seal) in China. It first originated in the Western Zhou Dynasty (1046–771 BC). The Rites of Zhou records that contracts were written on bamboo or wooden slips in duplicate. Notches and marks were carved in the middle before splitting the slips, with each party keeping one half. The two halves would be matched by their notches for verification.

During the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods (770–221 BC), this idea evolved into hufu虎符/tiger tally tokens. A military tally was split into two pieces with identical inscriptions carved along the split edge. Troops could only be deployed if the patterns and characters on both halves perfectly aligned, serving as a metal version of the split-joint anti-counterfeiting system.

The technology matured in the Tang Dynasty (618–907). Government documents and private contracts commonly used split-joint seals stamped across the dividing line. The Chinese character "hetong合同" (contract) was written across the middle before the paper was torn apart, so the complete characters would only appear when the two halves were put together. This split-coupon system was later adopted for Song Dynasty (960–1279) jiaozi paper money and yinpiao/silver drafts of the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368–1912).

Official Song dynasty paper money (Jiaozi交子) was abolished in 1107. Private silver drafts issued by Qing-era piaohao票行 (ancient exchange banks) vanished completely in 1951, hit hard by modern banks and currency reforms. Nowadays silver drafts no longer circulate as currency. Their collectible value depends on their rarity and physical condition.

First they were called "chirographs", but later the word "indenture" (in its earliest meaning as just a legal document of any kind between two people) came to be used, originating from the practice of a contract being written twice on a single piece of parchment and then cut in half with serrated edges (as in dent, "teeth" -> indents -> indenture) in order for each party to take one half, so they could later piece them together and verify that there had been no forgery -- same as the Chinese silver drafts!

(Charter of the Clerecía de Ledesma, 1252, showing the serrated indents at the top -- presumably they are cutting rather than tearing because they're using parchment, which I expect is much harder to tear than wood-pulp paper like the Chinese were using)

Think about how much more you enjoy things people you know have told you about personally, versus how much you've felt anything in particular after buying something from an ad. In a world without advertising, companies would have to actually earn that recommendation.

Fads would still happen. Sponsorships would still happen. In fact, sponsorships would happen a lot MORE, in hopes of attracting that sincere recommendation. But still, word of mouth would be the primary route to sales, and what people talk about is generally either really good or really bad.

This would also be really good for artists and graphic designers. If advertising is nowhere, packaging matters a lot more, and companies will put their money into quality design. If advertising is nowhere, companies will also need alternative ways to become Known, and sponsoring the arts is one of them. Especially hosting events, like music festivals or fairs... You know, like the medieval guilds used to do.

Children aren't born having a full understanding of gender or religion — they have to be indoctrinated into it. It might be inherent to people to seek out some kind of gender expression or spiritual belief, but the way we do it is not innate. We aren't born knowing that skirts are for girls and big trucks are for boys.

There is no law of nature that proves it is Wednesday. Days are real - the Earth rotates, the sun rises and sets, that’s physics. Deciding to build our entire westernised lives around 1/4 of the moon’s orbit is made up. There is no law of physics that links this moment in the lunar procession to ‘Wednesday’.

And yet it really is Wednesday. Mum, you need to go to work and later your choir who practice on Wednesdays will be pissed if you skip practice because ‘Wednesday is a social construct’.

It’s also completely valid to have a favourite day of the week - Sunday for my mum since she goes to church, doesn’t work and avoids domestic chores on Sunday. And all those feelings about Sundays are completely valid in the absence of any law of nature which proves ‘it’s Sunday’.