Whumpster Fire

Prior to this point, when Odysseus tries to exercise Xenia (ancient Greek guest rites/hospitality code), he did what he was supposed to do. (Well, we think so anyway — notably, the most famous books of the Odyssey are told by Odysseus, who isn’t exactly a reliable narrator.)

But when Polyphemus kills and eats some of the men, the game changes. The Cyclops makes it clear he has no intention of abiding by Zeus’s laws, and will cannibalize the lot of the men. So, Odysseus responds in kind — he breaks Xenia and lies. He introduces himself under a false name as part of a trick. Polyphemus then breaks Xenia again — he tells Nobody he’ll be eaten last, and that is the Cyclops’ guest gift to him.

Odysseus’ transgression is clearly the lesser one. The Nobody trick works. It gets Odysseus and most of his crew out of the cave alive.

But, crucially, before leaving Odysseus sheds his disguise. He admits his true identity, in detail, so he can boast of his achievements and add vanquishing a Cyclops to the list. And it bites him in the ass spectacularly.

The only reason why Polyphemus can curse Odysseus, can bid his father Poseidon to curse the man who blinded him, is because he now knows who did it. If Odysseus had kept his mouth shut, he might have safely made it home from there. But while a big part of why the Nobody disguise vs. real name reveal is showing Odysseus’s hubris, it’s not just about that. It’s also about the start of a pattern that hurts him more than it helps him.

From this point in the Odyssey on, Odysseus lies about his identity constantly. And sometimes it protects him, but more often it’s a detriment or at least unnecessary. He’s lying about his identity primarily to people who are on his side — a kindly loyal swineherd, his son, his faithful wife, his ailing father.

The last one is especially damning, because happens when Odysseus has already killed the suitors and returned home and reunited with the rest of his family sans disguises. He knows from everyone else that Laertes never betrayed him or his legacy, but was mourning his son and heartbroken for almost a decade. Odysseus has publicly declared his return to everyone else — his father doesn’t know because he’s living in squalor remotely. But Odysseus doesn’t tell his father who he is. He makes up a fake identity and tells a story implying Laertes’ son is dead. And when Laertes bursts out crying, then Odysseus drops the charade and finally admits who he really was.

There was no utility to that lie. No loyalty to test. No hidden threats to worry about. But Odysseus still instinctively lies to his beloved father about who he is, only dropping the charade when he sees the damage it’s doing to his relationships.

Because at this point, lying is pathological for Odysseus. He can’t seem to stop doing it. Because with Polyphemus, a lie protected him and the truth hurt him. That is the point of the “ Nobody” disguise.

Okay, let them stay up till 5 in the morning and feel like shit for the next day, eat a bag of candy in one go and have a huge stomach ache, go out without an umbrella and catch a cold, watch a violent movie and get scared?

It's funny you mention this one because I think I remember one on Reddit where the parent caught the kid watching a movie past their bedtime or something, and proceeded to force the kid to stay up literally all night watching movies with the parent and then go to school on zero sleep.

IMO the way to deal with that situation is: replace the TV in the same timeframe that you would if you accidentally broke it, but the kid isn't allowed to use the new TV for some period of time. Making them pay for the damages is reasonable IF the child is old enough / capable of working such that they actually have the ability to pay it back.

Of course the ideal should be a world without prisons. In a perfect utopian future, we would have no need for cages because we would have successfully dismantled the root causes of crime, poverty, and harm. But this smug, dismissive refusal to engage with the grittiest realities of human behavior helps absolutely nothing and actively works against her goals.

It treats a foundational question of public safety as a tiresome "gotcha" rather than a deeply legitimate human concern.

When activists retreat into pure idealism and dismiss the public's valid fears about violent crime as unworthy of a response, they don't look visionary. They look condescending, elitist, and entirely disconnected from the reality of human nature.

So I read the rest of this comic and more of her work.

The underlying logic of this deflection relies on a false dichotomy - the idea that if you dare to ask how an abolitionist world handles a rapist or a murderer, you must be a blanket defender of mass incarceration.

Over here in reality, you can fully recognize that our current justice system is deeply flawed, broken, and failing survivors, while still demanding to know what replaces the physical containment of dangerous individuals.

To frame a question about immediate physical safety as a structural roadblock is an intellectual bait-and-switch. It assumes that anyone asking for a practical plan just "doesn't get it," when in reality they just want to know how you plan to keep their loved ones safe.

The comics series "Who's Left" is garbage.

Here's how it dismisses people who lived through the communist (authoritarian) regimes of the 20gh century: by calling them old and xenophobic.

And here's how it defends those regimes:

Speaking as a lifelong left-leaning liberal: this is tankie bullshit and it deserves your contempt.

...yes it fucking is.

Okay I'm linking my commentary on that fucking story. As well as commentary by others. Just to be clear this is, let me re-emphasize, a story she wrote where the actual plot was "Here's my post police post gender utopia. This is about the second murder ever in that society's history, which was committed by a strawman of the people who keep asking me annoying questions about how my ideology would actually be implemented. Also she's white."

@drakedadragon wait i LOVE it you’re so right

since summoning takes a toll and stronger magicians have more innate energy/willpower, it makes sense for weaker ones to use more tech so they don’t waste energy with a bunch of imps. Plus underwood’s are all busy doing child abuse

Diving deeper, I don’t recall Kitty ever mentioning computers either, but with all the government censorship (libraries closed etc) they probably wouldn’t want them readily available. HOWEVER we’ve also seen that some commoners with money and status (Amanda Cathcart) get more equal treatment.

All this to say that in Magical London, more tech products are only being used by middle-class workaday magicians and upper-class commoners.

My own read was of computers but no internet, as in basic elaborators to streamline typing up documents and other office work, and we see Underwood with one because, as a lesser magician with lower rank in the ministry, he has (zero or very few) personal assistants to take on some of the bureaucracy that requires dealing with technology.

Also, Bartimaeus says (AoS, ch 25 — I think, I don't have my copy with me; it's when he and Faquarl hide under the car after escaping the Tower of London) that technology carries distinctly human "feel" that's bothersome to spirits. Therefore I usually assumed that it would also make summonings and other magical activities more draining/difficult, and that magicians avoided it when possible.

we saw you from across the Prague town square and really hate your vibe.

Absolutely, babycakes! And congrats on going to school and moving in with your pal.

We've written a lot on living independently for the first time, which I'll link below. But also, here are some basic communal things you should buy when you first move in:

bathmat, shower curtain, bath towels

toilet paper and hand towels (either cloth or paper, for both the kitchen and bathroom)

dish soap, sponges, and a dish drying rack

trashcans (1 for kitchen, 1 for bathroom)

curtains (a must for bedrooms and any see-through bathroom windows, but optional for common areas)

door mat (for wiping your feet off so you don't track mud inside)

common area seating such as a couch (even if it's a couple camp chairs from Walmart, you'll be glad you have somewhere you can sit and hang out together)

common area table that can double as an eating space and desk space for both of you

Those are the basics, and you can add more as you see fit. Good luck! Here's more info:

MASTERPOST: Everything You Need To Know About Living Independently for the First Time

In addition to the doormat, get a boot tray or some other place to put your shoes so they don't drip water on the floor.

Possibly a towel rack? This is an issue I encountered in a dorm room suite in college and not an actual apartment, but I did move into a place that did not have a towel rack in the vicinity of the shower and I had to buy a portable towel rack.

Bath mat. Stepping out of the bath/shower onto the smooth tile floor with wet feet is not just a nuisance, it's a safety hazard. Putting a towel on the floor outside the shower also works, but if you don't have a surplus of towels...

Lamps. If the apartment doesn't have built in lighting in places that need it, like the bedrooms and living room, you will need lamps.