The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

For me, it's that I enjoy controversy and stupidity waaaaaay too much for my own good. Unless it's the former and directed at me. Then I hate it with all my might.

I don't really know what to say at the moment, so for now, I'm sorry for your loss.

Reasonably-priced love, and a hard-boiled egg!

http://www.politiscales.net/en_US/results/?m0=57&m1=5&t0=7&t1=40&j0=64&b1=10&b0=29&e1=26&e0=43&c0=43&c1=21&s0=76&s1=5&p0=24&p1=31&femi=33&prag=100

Results.

I feel like this might end up being the most common set of results based on other responses.

https://www.politiscales.net/en_US/results/?b0=29&b1=10&c1=40&c0=5&m0=26&m1=19&e1=17&e0=21&p0=10&p1=36&t0=5&t1=52&femi=10&reli=67&s1=24&s0=24&j1=17&j0=33

This is the saddest flag I have ever seen. Also, I think I'll try this again, except maybe being a bit more assertive of my answers.

https://www.politiscales.net/en_US/results/?s1=26&s0=40&j0=36&j1=29&e0=19&e1=21&reli=67&m0=29&m1=29&c0=14&femi=14&c1=33&p1=52&p0=14&t1=57&t0=10&b0=40&b1=10

Well, here we go... at least the flag is better.

... I can put you on the map when I make it. :)

hS

I am not a politician but a majority of the scores are neutral.

Test results here.

Apparently, I have the highest Revolution, Productivism, Laissez-Faire and Capitalism values out of the answers posted so far (economically center-right, as opposed to everyone else's left or far-left), but I'm heavily Internationalist-Progressive like everyone else. Intriguing.

Vinland Saga is an ongoing manga that's been running for a bit over a decade now and has recently been getting attention, having just received a TV adaptation from Studio Wit. I opted to read the manga this time around instead of jumping into the show. I can't say definitively if that's a better or worse choice, so don't take that as a recommendation either way: this isn't a Berserk scenario where there's a right answer to that question (for those of you who are unaware: Beserk is a very well-known manga that's suffered through multiple really terrible anime adaptations). Although speaking of Berserk... well, I'll get to that later.

As the name might imply to you, Vinland Saga is about Vikings. It's about a Viking boy who swears revenge on a Viking after that Viking kills his Viking dad, and so he ends up working for the evil Viking so that he can continue to challenge him to duels to the death until the finally kills him because the evil Viking just won't kill the kid for some reason. It's also about a lot of people who aren't Vikings because, of course, Vikings were specifically the people going out on ships and pillaging. Viking has now ceased to sound or look like a word to me after writing it so much. Viking Viking Viking Viking Viking.

Right. So from that plot synopsis this really sounds like a fairly standard dark historical fantasy affair, which is... kind of is? and kind of isn't? If I had to say two things about Vinland Saga (at least so far) I'd say that it 1) does not put its best foot forward, and 2) has, so far, been far better in execution than in concept.

What I mean about it not putting its best foot forward is that Vinland saga opens on an epic battle scene full of people fighting each other and then the vikings come in and they're all awesome and stuff. As I read further through the story and into the prolonged flashback that takes up most of this first volume it became increasingly clear that that's not what this story is going to be about. if you're looking for hype action and killer fights, I don't think this will be your thing. The story and writing really shines when it slows down a lot and focuses in on character interactions. Most of the best, most memorable moments so far have just been people talking. Or even silence.

And this is where the thing about being better in execution comes in. A lot of these characters and scenarios are fairly archetypical, but it doesn't really matter because it's done so well. We've seen the kid out for revenge, the warrior turned pacifist, and so many of these other characters before, at least in outline. Thorfinn isn't all that different from... I dunno, 50 other anime protagonists with dead dads, on the surface. But he's rendered so well. He's visibly angry and bitter and driven by that need for revenge, and he's certainly a good fighter, but there's also something just... deeply pathetic about him. Beneath all that, he's still just a sad, scared, wounded kid. This isn't a story about the glory of revenge. If anything, it's a condemnation of that.

Likewise, we have our villain-slash-surrogate-father-figure (I know that makes no sense but it's sort of true), Askeladd. And as much as I love Thorfinn's characterization, I might just like Askeladd's even more. He's as charming as he is dangerous, and he's dangerous because he's so charming. He's a manipulative villain who really feels like one, charismatic to a fault, and always endlessly probing for whatever weak point or sore spot he can poke at to get exactly the reaction he wants. Whether or not he cares about the boy whose father he killed is an open question, but I don't doubt that he's got some ulterior motive in keeping Thorfinn alive.

The series has also, by all visible signs, been fairly well researched. It certainly has its basis in history, with several recognizable figures and traditions that are, near as I can tell, period accurate. But I'm not a historian by any stretch, so I'm not really the best to judge. I'm not shocked by this level of research: the author's previous work was a piece of hard sci-fi (near-future, fairly scientifically accurate) about space janitors, and he's certainly no stranger to research.

Art-wise, the manga is fairly solid. Most of it has a very tactile feel to it, with significantly more detail than a lot of manga I've read. That's a mixed blessing (more detail leads to busier scenes, more complexity, and so on), but it's used to full effect in those more introspective scenes. Sometimes the art jumps to more deformed style in moments of levity (or when Askeladd is trying to convince someone he's an idiot), which can be a bit jarring, given how detailed the art usually is, but it's standard practice in manga and anime, so you're either used to it or will be. The character designs are all clear and distinctive, something I really took for granted until I tried to read Attack on Titan, where everyone looks absolutely the same and I honestly didn't even last a full volume in. If I had to complain about the art at all, I'd say that fights often seem a little a muddied: It's hard to tell what's going on, and even someone's head getting cut off didn't really feel like it had much weight behind it. It's missing that something. Fullmetal Alchemist's fights feel better, and that manga is a lot sketchier, less detailed, and less bloody. It feels like, style, the fights are trying to emulate Berserk, but as ugly as its fights can sometimes get, Vinland Saga doesn't have the dark atmosphere or visceral sense of unpleasantness that really makes Berserk's fights. Everything's a little to clean, even when there's blood everywhere.

So yeah, that's Vinland Saga. Contrary to popular belief I wouldn't say it's that much like Berserk, even if it's probably cribbing from it a bit. It's not quite so gritty, but it's gritty enough to feel real and offers a lot of solid character moments interspersed with fight scenes that aren't really great but are solid enough.

At least for me, a "self-portrait" doesn't include just pointing a camera at yourself (because there's a word for that, it's "selfie") and so generally requires some nonzero amount of artistic effort. That is, if you told me you'd posted your self-portrait to the Board, I would be surprised to see a photograph, and if you went and put in the effort to, say, do a sketch of your face, I'd also be surprised to hear someone call that a "selfie".

(Addendum: And now that I'm thinking about it some more, if you were to make a selfie that was meant to be art (maybe you're doing some clever things with lighting, you've set up a whole scene, or you're trying to send a deep message), calling it a self-portrait would add to the effect and tell people you want them to think of this as art.)

This narrowing of what "self-portrait" means is definitely pretty recent, and this post is still very interesting, but I just figured I should chime in to point it out.

So, now that I'm actually looking at the results from the previous years, okay, things make more sense! Certain things I had thought changed only slightly (E.G., Progessivism) have actually drastically changed, which... is honestly rather interesting, I think, but also given the current political climate I'm somehow not surprised. I don't feel like going through everything again at the moment, so I'll just say that this is honestly more in line with what I was expecting.

Well, let's see what I get here. Although before I begin, I must say, this test can be rather irritating sometimes because it can be a little unclear what it's asking, or it gives two statements combined into one and thus commenting on them can be difficult (looking at you, "The categories 'man' and 'woman' are socially constructed categories which ought to be given up".)

http://www.politiscales.net/en_US/results/?b0=69&b1=5&t0=45&t1=33&j0=81&e0=43&e1=36&c0=83&c1=5&p0=45&p1=19&femi=57&m0=83&s0=79

Alright, let's see what we've got here... Alright, Constructivism has increased slightly, not much to say to that. Socialism has dropped a little, which, ah... I'm not sure why, honestly. If anything, I feel like I've become slightly more opposed to capitalism over the last year, so I can't tell why that change has been happening. Rehabilitative and Regulationism appear to be about where they were before. Progressivism is in much the same boat. Ecology... actually seems to have dropped a little. Huh. Not sure where that happened. Internationalism... holy cow that's a shrink what the bunny is wrong with me? And... sighs. Yeah, I suppose Revolution has increased somewhat because of recognition that yes, sometimes certain means must be employed to make change happen, even if I remain convinced that reform is better for everyone if it can be managed.

Now, pardon as I attempt to go figure out what has changed in my brain, and perhaps remedy it if it ought to be reversed.

That was fun, even though I didn't know what a lot of those statements meant and had to answer neutral for them.

My results

http://www.politiscales.net/en_US/results/?t0=5&t1=79&p0=60&p1=14&b1=10&b0=69&j1=5&j0=57&s0=55&s1=17&e0=64&e1=14&c1=36&c0=50&femi=24&m0=76&prag=67&vega=67

I've actually changed quite a lot since last year - I'm now much more constructivist than I was, mainly, and my motto has changed (it was "Humanity, Socialism, Justice" last time). There's also a lot more I'm unsure about. And somehow I'm both more revolutionary and more reformist.

http://www.politiscales.net/en_US/results/?b0=69&b1=5&m0=64&m1=5&s1=14&s0=83&femi=48&e0=43&e1=38&j1=12&j0=52&t1=21&t0=55&p0=48&p1=10&c1=21&c0=67&comp=67&prag=67

It feels pretty accurate, I suppose. Things of note: though I do believe capitalism is not ethical or good for our society, and believe that some traits of communism would be beneficial, I don't believe that either system is better for society, and would like to believe that someone smarter than me is working on designing a new, better system. Regarding the market and trading: The market should be regulated to some degree so that rampant abuse of power/resources doesn't happen. But it should stay free enough to the point where people can do what they want to a reasonable extent. Lastly, revolution. There's a lot of good which can come from reforming a system from within, and there is a lot of evidence to support that. However, I am a firm believer in that when wealth and power becomes incredibly concentrated, that reform becomes impossible from within, and needs to be taken by force. There are some things you can't change without revolt. Anyways, an interesting and fun test! I'm going to compare it to last year's results later and see what's changed.

Ended up not having context for a decent chunk of the questions and just putting down "neutral or hesitant" but overall I think these are pretty accurate for me

I meant to link the published version, but... didn't. ^_^

Oddly enough, I'm technically down as moving fractionally to the Right. I didn't mention it because a) that's embarrassing, but also b) what the full results show is that I've actually just eroded the middle ground. My Socialism score as such has actually increased (62>64); it's just that half of my 'eh' section has been switched to Capitalism. Goodness knows what caused that, though.

hS

It's saying I need to request access to see it.

I'll have to take the test later, but I've got a sneaking suspicion I've moved farther left as well.

In six days, we get to vote for our entire government - again. We should still have the government from 2015 (Parliament is meant to be elected for 5 year terms), but this is our second election since then, and could lead to our fourth Prime Minister in four years. It's all a bit mad.

Our next government will almost certainly be formed either by the Tories/Conservatives (who will promptly crash us out of our relationship with our nearest and largest trading partner), or by a hodgepodge coalition of the Left and Centre (who will... Manwe only knows, but items on the agenda will be cancelling Brexit in multiple mutually exclusive ways, and holding a referendum for Scotland to leave the UK). Neither option looks like it's going to go particularly well, though I'm vastly in favour of the second. But instead of thinking about that... how about some political compasses?

PolitiScales is the PPC's preferred political compass for the last couple of years. By asking 117 questions (multiple choice, it takes about 15 minutes), it spits out not only your Left/Right and Socially Liberal/Authoritarian position, but also a bunch of other values. It also creates a very snazzy map for you based on your results, along with the motto of the nation of you. This is the record of the PPC's historic results.

Here's my results for this year. Not a lot of change really, and most of it to higher values: I've gone more in for Constructivism and Ecology, and have pushed almost to the max on Regulationism and Internationalism. Scapegrace will also be pleased to know that I've become more revolutionary (probably because my country is going to pot in a handbasket).

My motto remains as Equality - Humanity - Socialism, and my flag is pretty much the same (just a couple of colours changed in the cross). And, I've managed to shake off the shameful Pragmatist badge I picked up last time; hooray!

What I really like to do with these results is plot them onto a map, in what has become known as The Protectors of Plortitics. Rest assured that everything is made ready for the next generation; as soon as I have a few results to work with, I'll get the first map up for your enjoyment...

hS

Because, well... it's kind of fun?

The word 'selfie', used to describe a photographic self-portrait, seems to have been coined around 2002 (that's the date Wikipedia gives for its first electronic or print appearance). But the history goes back a looooot further than that... let's have a look at some of the milestones:

2012: First selfie taken on Mars

NASA's Curiousity rover took this one; it was then shared on Facebook, in classic selfie fashion. The lens was apparently a bit dusty!

1966: First space selfie

Buzz Aldrin took a selfie while on EVA from Gemini 12, in 1966. Michael Collins took an earlier one on Gemini 10, inside the capsule.

1914: First (known) selfie by a teenager

The handheld 'Brownie' camera in 1900 led to the possibility of home selfies, taken by pointing the camera at a mirror. This one was taken by Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia - yes, that Anastasia - who wrote to a friend, "I took this picture of myself looking at the mirror. It was very hard as my hands were trembling."

1839: First photographic selfie

Arguably the first 'true' selfie, Robert Cornelius took this by setting up the camera, running into shot, and waiting there until the exposure had finished.

Prior to this point, we're into the realm of self-portraiture, but frankly it's the same thing.

1548: First oil-paint selfie by a woman

Caterina van Hemessen inscribed her picture with the words 'I Caterina van Hemessen have painted myself / 1548 / Her aged 20', which is kind of adorable. She wasn't the first woman to paint herself - there are apparently earlier manuscript paintings - but she was the first to do so in what we think of as painting. Almost all women painters have followed her lead and created their own self-portraits, which isn't as common among men.

1433: First Western panel selfie after antiquity

A probable self-portrait of Jan van Eryk. The description would once have read 'first panel selfie', but that would completely neglect the Asian history of the art-form, as well as the fact that classical European artists also painted, though their work is largely lost.

ca. 950: First English selfie

Saint Dunstan, who became Archbishop of Canterbury in 950, drew himself grovelling before Christ, with the inscription "Remember, I beg you, merciful Christ, to protect Dunstan, and do not permit the storms of the underworld to swallow me up."

Now we're going to take a huge leap back, abandoning the realm of paint entirely. It's sculpture time!

1365 BC: First known named selfie

On the right is Bak, chief sculptor to Pharoah Akhenaten (husband of Nefertiti and father of Tutankhamun). On the left is his wife. The general consensus is that her body has been stylised in the Amarna Style of the time, while his is probably an accurate depiction.

And that's almost the complete history. I can't (on a brief browse) find an earlier self-portrait of an artist whose name is know.

But...

30,000-10,000 BC: First selfies (maybe)

The so-called Venus Figurines (the picture is the Venus of Dolní Věstonice, the earliest piece of ceramic-work in the world) are usually taken to be either goddess figures, or images of female beauty, Paleolithic incarnations of the male gaze. But there is an alternate theory: that they are self-portraits of the women depicted. Without a mirror, you can't see your own head, so you shrink it down; your feet taper away from you, so you narrow the legs almost to points. This is far from the only way to explain the stylised design of the Venuses, but I think it is the most thought-provoking.

If it's true, then these aren't sculptures of what these women looked like: they're sculptures of what it felt like to be them. "This is how I see myself," rendered totally literally; and if you think about it, that's still the motivation behind selfies, right down to today.

hS

I also feel the same Thoth, but I still need to learn to control my anger.

...But it's because she winds me up. Like, just... says all the right things to get me reaaally mad.

(CW: Violence, Death, Dismemberment, Mentions of Suicide)

So, I was finally able to get around to watching Season 3 of Netflix's The Dragon Prince, and I figured I might as well share my thoughts here.

So, I suppose I'll start at the beginning - well, around the beginning. I'll admit, my memory's a bit scattered as to events. So, firstly, a minor note - am I the only one who misheard Aaravos' name? Because this is the first season I've watched with subtitles on, and his name sounded a lot like Erebos to me before. But that's a minor point. I will say that I like how they worked their way around Sol Regem, and Xadia is a wonderfully charming land and does not resemble the nightmarish demonland I feared might await them - the worst thing they found there were the fart flowers, which just smell bad instead of trying to eat people like I expected, and the adoraburrs are, well, adorable.

One minor thing that I'm not quite sure on is why the shade assassins Viren created with Aaravos' help actually did their jobs. I was under the impression he wanted to scare the old kings and queen into action rather than replace them, and while he ended up getting what he wanted, it seems like it was a little much given what he was after.

I rather liked the fact that there was a solid commitment to peace set up while also acknowledging that doing so was going to be difficult. However, this, I think, is a decent place to one of my main two grumbles about this season, that being that I was actually hoping to see Ezran be pushed to a point where he has to learn, very quickly, about how to be a king and how to deal with political shenanigans, and instead.... he abdicates. While not entirely an incomprehensible decision - he is, after all, a child - it is still not one that I think was particularly well thought-out, nor do I understand why him choosing to abdicate gets him thrown in the dungeon, or how this allows Viren to be pardoned. After all, I'm pretty sure you're not found innocent of treason just because the person who was president when you did so left office (insert series of qualifiers acknowledging that you should be found innocent if your 'treason' was revealing or preventing the sort of acts that would cause a president to be forced out of office if they would not choose to leave), and I'm not sure why Ezran would pardon Viren as he's leaving the throne, particularly since it is very obvious that, once he has the chance, he'll try to take the crown and then go to war, which Ezran has specifically said he doesn't want to happen. Also, while I'm willing to concede that this is something someone might just not think of, why didn't Ezran just call Kasef on his ultimatum? After all, if a war is going to happen either way, it'd be better to have his forces be in the defensive position since they'd be much more able to use the terrain to their advantage, particularly given that I don't exactly recall any siege weapons being among those possessed by the combined armies of the other three kingdoms. Not only that, but even if Kasef managed to defeat the forces of Katolis in battle, the cost would probably be so high that marching on Xadia would become virtually impossible. Beyond this, he has a second, not-yet-a-traitor Dark Magician on his hands who he could bluff Kasef into thinking he would ask to rain fire and brimstone down upon the three armies, and with those kind of modifiers on Ezran's side and the aftermath to think of, trying to go against Katolis without your own magicians (which we can be sure that the three armies don't have from later in the season) is tantamount to suicide.

But, grumbles about what else could have been done aside, I'm not sure it works thematically. It sets up that peace requires strength and sacrifice, and then... Ezran leaves. He leaves, which, given the information at his disposal, will lead to the humans attacking right after the Zym returns, making it seem like giving him back was just an act used to get the Xadians to let their guard down, causing the war to flare up again and resulting in far more casualties than would have occurred if he'd stayed. Peace requires strength, requires sacrifice, but is ultimately worth it - now let's have our characters get it, or at least get a lot closer to having it, while walking away from the decision that would have really suited this idea and in the process come out just as well off, if not better, than they would have if they'd made that decision.

But, let's see... I rather liked the thing about Ghost-ing, it felt like it really fit, especially since Moon magic uses illusions and plays with the senses, and I continue to appreciate the casual gay. I also noticed that evidently, the people locked inside the coins aren't dead yet, which I like, though now that I think about it, there are probably numerous magical uses for elves which makes it feel a little like Viren is wasting resources by leaving them alive. It also makes me wonder if, perhaps, Thunder's petrification could be reversed, given that the spear inside of him isn't stone, perhaps by its removal by the hands of someone who loved the Queen.

Let's see... ah, I have to say, it is refreshing to see a winged humanoid design which doesn't place the wings on the back. Not that I mind that kind of design, per se, but it is rather nice to see different ones now and again. I'm quite glad that Soren got away and is now on the side of the good guys, and I am also fairly sure that what Viren did in the dungeon scene is gaslighting and wow was watching that not fun. On an actually fun note - Aaravos. I don't know about anyone else, but I find him to be, while clearly evil, also... actually kind of fun and funny to watch, especially given how he floats around however he cares to, but also being scarily powerful because he took one of the Sunfire elves and incinerated her. And I really think that the last battle was really cool and I absolutely enjoyed watching it (even if I'm not sure how the armies of Duren got there so fast since, as memory serves, the closest thing to a detour the four armies took was when they stopped by Lux Aurea, and as I recall, that wasn't a detour, and in fact, going around it would have been one). But - overall? I liked it.

However, there is a second grumble I have with this series, and this is something of a personal one - not so much in that it's something which affects me, personally, but it's a way of portraying things that I'm tired of, and that is with Dark Magic being always evil regardless of context. Now, at the beginning of the season, I actually had hope that there'd be some nuance introduced to it (foolish, given the ending of the last season, I know, but it's been a while). Generally, when somebody says, "You are lesser beings," and then tries to blackmail you by threatening to incinerate a town, he doesn't turn out to be right about much of anything. However... there really doesn't seem to be that much. From this season, take a look at what happens in Lux Aurea. While you could attribute this to the way the elves think, there is the implication that "Does Not Use Dark Magic" = "Pure Of Heart". That any bad person is going to use Dark Magic, and that no good person would. Or, if a good person does, its nature is inherently corruptive - see the previous season when some of Claudia's hair turned white because of how she used Dark Magic to heal Soren. But... the way Dark Magic is built in this series? I just don't buy it. A lot of it seems to be usable just by doing things like squishing bugs or just waiting for a creature to die and harvesting the ingredients then. The big, horrible price that Claudia paid for healing Soren, who was completely paralyzed from the neck down, as I recall, was... killing a deer. That's it. She didn't murder anyone, and I'm fairly sure it wasn't implied she had to torture it, she just killed a deer - which a lot of people do anyway because they need to put food on the table and deer are the best source available to them, particularly in the era in which this is set. Yet this appears to be painted as a flat-out bad thing for her to do. In fact, now that I think about it, the two times her hair turns more white, it's because she performed some kind of healing magic - the first time on Soren, and while the second time is contextually a lot worse, it was to bring her beloved father back from the dead, and evidently these are her most corrupt and evil acts. Granted, we don't know yet what the price for the second act was, but unless it was a sentient life, does it even matter (context aside, given that it's Viren, any price could be considered too much, but that's not the point)? In this series, there appears to be no situation in which making a sacrifice is justifiable, even if it is clearly the better choice and will either help a lot of people or drastically improve one person's situation without harming any other sentient being, and this idea bleeds into its magic in a way that is, frankly, disappointing.

You know what's blowing my mind? Nobody here knew me before I knew Merlin. We got him in 2000, when I was 15. I joined the PPC in 2003. I met Phobos in 2007.

There's not that much in my life that predates the PPC. It's pretty weird.

<-- Teen Nesh and Baby Merlin, December 2000

~Neshomeh