yeah what you critics said would never happen
we dedicate this album to anybody people said couldnt make it
to the fans that held us down till everybody came around
[SMASHES THROUGH UR CEILING] [FLIPS OVER UR MATTRESS] [PUNCHES A HOLE IN THE WALL]
If you ever want a conversation starter, ask your friends to consider the logistics of the ghost economy. Why, you say? Well, friend, consider:
- ghosts generally cannot interact with the corporeal world
- ghosts generally wear clothes and carry the items they died with
- therefore, the only source of goods in the ghost world is whatever people died with
Some potential implications:
- what is the probability that ghost society could build, say, a house? how many ghosts on average would this require? what new innovations of ghost engineering allow them to refit ballpoint pens and spare change into all manner of luxury items?
- if ghosts can scare or lure people to their deaths, they would have a strong incentive to do so while the person is carrying something they want. holding a slice of cheesecake? you’re a target. wearing a nice pair of shoes? target. carrying an ipod with decent musical taste? there are at least 50 ghosts plotting against you right now.
- ghost science has access to a wealth of observational data not available to the living (e.g. they can just walk into the heart of a volcano), but if they want, say, a microscope, they’re probably shit outta luck. social science is not exempt— sure, you can interview someone who actually lived in ancient mesopotamia, but you’ll have to hoard paper to even write it down, much less publish. ghost scientists are frustrated.
- without physical needs, the entirety of ghost society runs on a boredom economy. houses where the living inhabitants regularly watch tv with the speakers on are a key commodity. if you die with a deck of cards or a musical instrument, you are a very valuable person.
- tips for the living: always carry your favorite items in your pocket, and at all costs avoid dying naked.
The Rose Garden | Beatrice Parsons (1870-1955)
Bikes / good patterns in Tokyo
Vincent van Gogh, Wheat Field with Cypresses, 1889
the problem with the way spn is addressing sexism/misogyny right now is that it is creating situations and scenes for the express purpose of having a secondary female character smack down a secondary male character or for one of the leading male protagonists to roll his eyes at the ignorance of a one-off male character.
in other words, they are deliberately writing in sexist scenarios with which to hamfistedly subvert, instead of directly challenging the sexism and misogyny embedded within the narrative and its two leading male protagonists.
if we go back to s3, ruby saying ‘stop calling me bitch’ to dean straight-to-his-face is a proper example of the way to do it…it requires both dean and the audience to confront their own propensity for misogyny/sexism and unnecessary name-calling, and doesn’t uphold sam and dean as the paragon of male characters (who are sexist themselves ‘but lol it’s okay guys they stand up for women when there are worse sexists around!!’).
this is the problem with having a mostly male writing team because in order for them to see sexism they have to be so blatant and over-the-top about it, they don’t have the perspective to understand that sexism and misogyny exists everywhere, that they are an undercurrent through everything, that they are reinforced everyday by the microaggressions that women experience. they can only see the macro picture and tackle it on a macro-exaggerated scale.
Dean Winchester. Out of the fire and back in the frying pan, huh? Makes you a rare individual.
To start this off I just want to say. I’m the kind of person who plays GTA and generally enjoys it. As violent as those games are, most of the mayhem you can cause is optional, does not take up the main focus of the game and hardly ever takes itself seriously. There are never any missions that say “Go kill a group of innocent people just because”. And most of the reactions to people who do dumb stuff on the streets is hardly trauma inducing.
Now comes Hatred. In this day and age where we’ve had to go through several horrible mass shootings, a developer thought it would be a good idea to make a game that glorifies mass shooting. The main protagonist is a self proclaimed humanity hater who wants the world to burn. And the game’s focuses you going on the streets, puling innocent civilians down and either gunning them or stabbing them to death. This is not done in the crude, comedic style of GTA or any other such game. This game is serious. The tone is disturbing and the reactions from the in game NPC’s is unsettling.
See the trailer here. I warn you though, it’s exceedingly violent and dark. Do not buy this game. Make sure it flops. If this game gets even a moderate amount of love, news outlets are going to take this as a sign that ‘Gamers as a whole condone mass murder hububububu’. And who knows what other backlash can come of this. Do not think I’m overreacting. In 24 years I can honestly say, this is the most unsettling game I’ve ever seen. It’s not horror. It’s just pure, disturbing violence that makes even games like manhunt seem family friendly.