You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
there are varying degrees of intellectual impairment; some intellectually disabled people are quite capable of speaking for themselves
i'm not sure there is a unified social justice worldview, but i think it's generally held that people with disabilities should be treated with respect and that programmes should exist so that people with disabilities should be able to do the same things everyone else can do, as far as is possible
This, with the above caveat replacing "some" with "many."
And yes, "social justice" is a fairly big umbrella term.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
True.
I wonder how painful it is to give birth to a horse
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Are you implying that intellectually disabled persons cannot self-advocate?
There are a substantial number that do, though they do not seem to make much headway...
There are some severe disorders where people don't learn to communicate.
Between that and IQ of 70, well, advocacy is politics, and so far as my understanding of psychology goes, people with IQs of 70 and below are rather impaired at problem-solving, learning social rules, etc. It seems obvious that, as social justice is political, there comes a point where you run out of groups intelligent enough to self-advocate and it becomes advocavy done for somebody else.
(Of couse Lenin felt that way even about the intelligence of proletarians. Where does Lenin fit into the social justice worldview?)
People with disabilities should be treated with respect and dignity; and, if needed, should be able to get help or accommodations for the things they are not able to do.
Braille for the blind, ramps for those in wheelchairs, subtitles in movies for the deaf. I don't think that any of these specific things infantilize the blind, deaf, or wheelchair-bound. Other accommodations may or may not be appropriate, depending on the situation (a person with no arms may wish to make himself a sandwich (or do other tasks, like using a doorknob with his feet, clothe himself, or write with his feet); and might feel hurt if you assume that he cannot feed himself, clothe himself, open doors, or write; another person with no arms may appreciate it if you make him a sandwich or hold open a door for him or help him get dressed or transcribe a letter that he dictates).
In any case, people should be treated fairly, with respect and understanding.
More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
people who are blind deserve to fumble around in the dark and people who are retarded should be left in the road to die because we should only live for ourselves and no one else and we shouldn't handicap people who are beautiful and smart and talented, who are inevitably the rich, who deserve their money, unlike those filthy leeches with too many children getting free meals for nothing.
/ayn rand/right wing america/some people in mikos family
Tolkien is the wen on the arse of fantasy literature. His oeuvre is massive and contagious - you can't ignore it, so don't even try. The best you can do is consciously try to lance the boil. And there's a lot to dislike - his cod-Wagnerian pomposity, his boys-own-adventure glorying in war, his small-minded and reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos, his belief in absolute morality that blurs moral and political complexity. Tolkien's clichés - elves 'n' dwarfs 'n' magic rings - have spread like viruses. He wrote that the function of fantasy was 'consolation', thereby making it an article of policy that a fantasy writer should mollycoddle the reader.
I wouldn't be so vicious. Tolkien was one of the first people (after Lord Dunsany) to introduce real detailed world-building to heroic fantasy, particularly in the realm of geopolitics and linguistics, and I will not fault him for that. However, I do think that the worst aspects of Tolkien's fiction have spread with far more virulence than many of his better ideas. What is worse is that they are frequently misunderstood by his imitators, or simplified badly. It is not unlike bad Lovecraftian pastiche in that way.
I think that basically everyone who isn't a Leninist agrees on that to some degree.
Lenin, it turns out, would have been the greatest master of the pogo-stick the world had ever seen. Sadly, he never saw a Pogo-Stick in his life, and never heard of them.
I think that basically everyone who isn't a Leninist agrees on that to some degree.
Lenin, it turns out, would have been the greatest master of the pogo-stick the world had ever seen. Sadly, he never saw a Pogo-Stick in his life, and never heard of them.
I shall accept this as part of my personal reality because it appeals to my aesthetics.
You know, not all the Elves are good. It's just that we mostly saw the good individuals of Tolkein's elves in The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings. Feanor is an example of an elf really making things go all bad-like.
TLOTR and The Hobbit were written for children; and The Silmarillion and a lot of other stuff was written more for Adults and himself. The books for children (Hobbit and LOTR) seem to be a lot more well-known and commonly read.
If Tolkein had lived longer, had finalized/revised/finished The Silmarillion and the stories in it; and had been able to finish and publish the stories that he didn't get to publish or finish in his life...
Tolkien is the wen on the arse of fantasy literature. His oeuvre is massive and contagious - you can't ignore it, so don't even try. The best you can do is consciously try to lance the boil. And there's a lot to dislike - his cod-Wagnerian pomposity, his boys-own-adventure glorying in war, his small-minded and reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos, his belief in absolute morality that blurs moral and political complexity. Tolkien's clichés - elves 'n' dwarfs 'n' magic rings - have spread like viruses. He wrote that the function of fantasy was 'consolation', thereby making it an article of policy that a fantasy writer should mollycoddle the reader.
it's actually like stupid to claim that Tolkien glorified war especially when there are entire college courses dedicated to how the Lord of the Rings series is about how awful war is.
not that I particularly like Tolkien as anything more than a bedrock for one of my favored genres of media, but it's really dumb of whoever wrote this to deliberately misrepresent him in that way.
I actually legitimately enjoy The Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit on the level of popcorn-munching fun (or whatever the equivalent is for books) as well as on the more intellectual level of "huge world with languages and an interesting story".
I think that it's a problem with us that we appreciate certain works for their quality and forget to actually enjoy them. Like, a tree that's thousands of years old, you look at it and wonder at it, and say "yup", and you've had an experience; but you haven't gone and tried to climb it or swing from its branches or jump out of it or have fun.
I think it's kind of sad when you can't be entertained by stuff like Treasure Island or The Call of The Wild or Pride and Prejudice on the level of having a good time or being invested in the story in addition to the usual level of appreciating the classics.
Tolkien is the wen on the arse of fantasy literature. His oeuvre is massive and contagious - you can't ignore it, so don't even try. The best you can do is consciously try to lance the boil. And there's a lot to dislike - his cod-Wagnerian pomposity, his boys-own-adventure glorying in war, his small-minded and reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos, his belief in absolute morality that blurs moral and political complexity. Tolkien's clichés - elves 'n' dwarfs 'n' magic rings - have spread like viruses. He wrote that the function of fantasy was 'consolation', thereby making it an article of policy that a fantasy writer should mollycoddle the reader.
I kind of wish people more often saw plays and enjoyed them the same way you enjoy, say, Avatar The Last Airbender or whatever the cool shows are these days. Not that there's anything wrong with appreciating the great art, and the symbolism in Shakespeare or other plays, that's good. It's just that I'd like it if people realized that some of Shakespeare's comedies can be enjoyed in kind of the same way as a stupid Mister Bean episode; that you actually laugh and it's just so stupid.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Honestly, I do find the escapism of "worldbuilding" disturbing. Creating a fake world for readers to immerse themselves in devalues Earth. Earth doesn't have to be seen as a dull, disenchated world to be escaped from. Homer, Ovid, Chretien de Troyes, Ariosto, the authors of the Thousad and One Nights, et al set their fantastic stories here.
Honestly, I do find the escapism of "worldbuilding" disturbing. Creating a fake world for readers to immerse themselves in devalues Earth. Earth doesn't have to be seen as a dull, disenchated world to be escaped from. Homer, Ovid, Chretien de Troyes, Ariosto, the authors of the Thousad and One Nights, et al set their fantastic stories here.
Well, you can make a fake word for readers to immerse themselves in without devaluing Earth. You could show Earth as a world of many wonders and mysteries, of strange things; and also show other worlds as being strange, mysterious, and interesting. It's not an either-or.
Earth is a world where water falls from the sky, where sometimes stones fall from the sky, where things like the Aurora Borealis exist.
You could see a frog as a dull animal that is only interesting if you kiss it and turn it into a prince. You could see a frog as an everyday creature, not like the phoenix.
Or, you could see the Frog as a creature that breathes through its skin, can breathe underwater and abovewater, a thing with a tounge longer than its body, a creature of many colors and sounds.
Honestly, I do find the escapism of "worldbuilding" disturbing. Creating a fake world for readers to immerse themselves in devalues Earth. Earth doesn't have to be seen as a dull, disenchated world to be escaped from. Homer, Ovid, Chretien de Troyes, Ariosto, the authors of the Thousad and One Nights, et al set their fantastic stories here.
Well, you can make a fake word for readers to immerse themselves in without devaluing Earth. You could show Earth as a world of many wonders and mysteries, of strange things; and also show other worlds as being strange, mysterious, and interesting. It's not an either-or.
Earth is a world where water falls from the sky, where sometimes stones fall from the sky, where things like the Aurora Borealis exist.
You could see a frog as a dull animal that is only interesting if you kiss it and turn it into a prince. You could see a frog as an everyday creature, not like the phoenix.
Or, you could see the Frog as a creature that breathes through its skin, can breathe underwater and abovewater, a thing with a tounge longer than its body, a creature of many colors and sounds.
Indeed.
I think that it really all depends on the needs and nature of the story. If you can set it on Earth, whether as it is in reality or very different, then you do; if not, then make another world and set it there. That is the beauty of fiction: You are not limited by anything but your own descriptive ability.
Honestly, I do find the escapism of "worldbuilding" disturbing. Creating a fake world for readers to immerse themselves in devalues Earth. Earth doesn't have to be seen as a dull, disenchated world to be escaped from. Homer, Ovid, Chretien de Troyes, Ariosto, the authors of the Thousad and One Nights, et al set their fantastic stories here.
this is predicated on the idea that Cyclopses etc. are real, you must realize.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Honestly, I do find the escapism of "worldbuilding" disturbing. Creating a fake world for readers to immerse themselves in devalues Earth. Earth doesn't have to be seen as a dull, disenchated world to be escaped from. Homer, Ovid, Chretien de Troyes, Ariosto, the authors of the Thousad and One Nights, et al set their fantastic stories here.
this is predicated on the idea that Cyclopses etc. are real, you must realize.
Right, it's predicated on the idea that the world is enchanted. Feeling that fantastic stories have to be set in a made-up world is predicated on ideas that don't seem to predate Dunsany.
Honestly, I do find the escapism of "worldbuilding" disturbing. Creating a fake world for readers to immerse themselves in devalues Earth. Earth doesn't have to be seen as a dull, disenchated world to be escaped from. Homer, Ovid, Chretien de Troyes, Ariosto, the authors of the Thousad and One Nights, et al set their fantastic stories here.
this is predicated on the idea that Cyclopses etc. are real, you must realize.
Right, it's predicated on the idea that the world is enchanted. Feeling that fantastic stories have to be set in a made-up world is predicated on ideas that don't seem to predate Dunsany.
There have been imaginary lands in fiction since long before Dunsany, including in Homer. The only difference is that Dunsany made his land truly inaccessible rather than functionally so. And setting all that aside, the argument that invented worlds devalue the real world (rather than indirectly illuminate it) sounds suspiciously similar to the old saw that non-fiction is superior to fiction because fiction "isn't real"—a belief that you and I both probably think equally lowly of.
As a completely unnecessary tangential statement, the idea of fantasy in the so-called "real world" is something that has interested me more and more over time
But I think of worldbuilding - the creation of wholly separate imaginary worlds - as being its own sort of craft
As a completely unnecessary tangential statement, the idea of fantasy in the so-called "real world" is something that has interested me more and more over time
But I think of worldbuilding - the creation of wholly separate imaginary worlds - as being its own sort of craft
Like, with fantasy in the real world, you're just introducing fantastic elements into what is otherwise the "normal" world we know. There are a lot of possibilities with this, sure.
But with building imaginary worlds, you're creating a world from the ground up, sort of, with its own history and geography and politics and natural laws, even. I think that's fundamentally a different kind of project.
More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
*hugs Pillows*
I think that some of Tolkien's weaker favored tropes have been turned into mindless fantasy clichés without regard for the complexities of their context, and I think that his writing is intelligent, even if it is escapist. His stories depict complex politics and cultural interaction. He depicts magic as a dangerous force that is easy to misuse, even by those learned enough to channel it (wizards); it is never a deus ex machina or anything (I think). His elves are not perfect or benevolent by any stretch, but they are a sort of metaphor for angels, as well as how angels can go bad and become demons (orcs). His fantasy races are not simplified into good/evil or anything. Everyone evil has a motivation. etc.
Make a fantasy world without friction. Make one where objects don't get seem to get smaller the further away you go from them (no perspective). Write a world without light, where there is no sight (thus, in that world, you could impersonate somebody by mimicking his/her voice). Write about shoes that let you walk on any surface, including walls, water (both on top of the surface, and under it, by the shoes sticking to the surface of the water but on the bottom side). Write a world that works by the rules of Salvador Dali or M.C. Escher drawings. Write about a little mite living around a hair follicle.
I think that some of Tolkien's weaker favored tropes have been turned into mindless fantasy clichés without regard for the complexities of their context, and I think that his writing is intelligent, even if it is escapist. His stories depict complex politics and cultural interaction. He depicts magic as a dangerous force that is easy to misuse, even by those learned enough to channel it (wizards); it is never a deus ex machina or anything (I think). His elves are not perfect or benevolent by any stretch, but they are a sort of metaphor for angels, as well as how angels can go bad and become demons (orcs). His fantasy races are not simplified into good/evil or anything. Everyone evil has a motivation. etc.
Almost every fantasy world is based on Earth in some way, really.
This is also true. Even China Miéville's stuff takes inspiration from various world myths in terms of cosmology. But that is probably inevitable: We are human, after all.
Comments
I wonder how painful it is to give birth to a horse
Someone ask Loki
There are some severe disorders where people don't learn to communicate.
Between that and IQ of 70, well, advocacy is politics, and so far as my understanding of psychology goes, people with IQs of 70 and below are rather impaired at problem-solving, learning social rules, etc. It seems obvious that, as social justice is political, there comes a point where you run out of groups intelligent enough to self-advocate and it becomes advocavy done for somebody else.
(Of couse Lenin felt that way even about the intelligence of proletarians. Where does Lenin fit into the social justice worldview?)
Braille for the blind, ramps for those in wheelchairs, subtitles in movies for the deaf. I don't think that any of these specific things infantilize the blind, deaf, or wheelchair-bound. Other accommodations may or may not be appropriate, depending on the situation (a person with no arms may wish to make himself a sandwich (or do other tasks, like using a doorknob with his feet, clothe himself, or write with his feet); and might feel hurt if you assume that he cannot feed himself, clothe himself, open doors, or write; another person with no arms may appreciate it if you make him a sandwich or hold open a door for him or help him get dressed or transcribe a letter that he dictates).
In any case, people should be treated fairly, with respect and understanding.
/ayn rand/right wing america/some people in mikos family
TLOTR and The Hobbit were written for children; and The Silmarillion and a lot of other stuff was written more for Adults and himself. The books for children (Hobbit and LOTR) seem to be a lot more well-known and commonly read.
If Tolkein had lived longer, had finalized/revised/finished The Silmarillion and the stories in it; and had been able to finish and publish the stories that he didn't get to publish or finish in his life...
not that I particularly like Tolkien as anything more than a bedrock for one of my favored genres of media, but it's really dumb of whoever wrote this to deliberately misrepresent him in that way.
I think that it's a problem with us that we appreciate certain works for their quality and forget to actually enjoy them. Like, a tree that's thousands of years old, you look at it and wonder at it, and say "yup", and you've had an experience; but you haven't gone and tried to climb it or swing from its branches or jump out of it or have fun.
I think it's kind of sad when you can't be entertained by stuff like Treasure Island or The Call of The Wild or Pride and Prejudice on the level of having a good time or being invested in the story in addition to the usual level of appreciating the classics.
Honestly, I do find the escapism of "worldbuilding" disturbing. Creating a fake world for readers to immerse themselves in devalues Earth. Earth doesn't have to be seen as a dull, disenchated world to be escaped from. Homer, Ovid, Chretien de Troyes, Ariosto, the authors of the Thousad and One Nights, et al set their fantastic stories here.
Earth is a world where water falls from the sky, where sometimes stones fall from the sky, where things like the Aurora Borealis exist.
You could see a frog as a dull animal that is only interesting if you kiss it and turn it into a prince. You could see a frog as an everyday creature, not like the phoenix.
Or, you could see the Frog as a creature that breathes through its skin, can breathe underwater and abovewater, a thing with a tounge longer than its body, a creature of many colors and sounds.
CA knows virtually everything about Columbus, it seems, but I don't know enough about this place and have rarely cared to learn more... :/
But I think of worldbuilding - the creation of wholly separate imaginary worlds - as being its own sort of craft
But with building imaginary worlds, you're creating a world from the ground up, sort of, with its own history and geography and politics and natural laws, even. I think that's fundamentally a different kind of project.
*stops KMGH using massive fuzzbox distortion*
I think that some of Tolkien's weaker favored tropes have been turned into mindless fantasy clichés without regard for the complexities of their context, and I think that his writing is intelligent, even if it is escapist. His stories depict complex politics and cultural interaction. He depicts magic as a dangerous force that is easy to misuse, even by those learned enough to channel it (wizards); it is never a deus ex machina or anything (I think). His elves are not perfect or benevolent by any stretch, but they are a sort of metaphor for angels, as well as how angels can go bad and become demons (orcs). His fantasy races are not simplified into good/evil or anything. Everyone evil has a motivation. etc.
is it bad that I know I made this gif back in February, yet I can't remember how I created it?