It's about Kochou Shinobu from demon slayer you can post about her and the other demon slayer characters too like Nezuko, Tanjiro, Inosuke etc.
Ummm I guess this is for drawings of demon slayer characters and stuff I mean it doesn’t have to be characters I mean you can post stuff that isn’t drawing but drawing would be preferable, personally I’m not too too good at drawing, I’d really like to see some cool art of Demon Slayer because I really like the show and manga. So yeah have fun, I hope people join though they probably won’t.
Community dedicated to sharing funny memes of Demon Slayer or also called Kimetsu no Yaiba. You will also find recent news, discussions and fan art of Kimetsu no Yaiba characters such as Tanjiro, Nezuko Inozuke, Shinobu, Kanae and more...
Life comes in many flavours, and each day we face many questions. Some of these questions are judgements. And some of these judgements involve others in significant and meaningful ways. On the one hand, we seek to satisfy our personal needs
-- self-determination -- while maintaining a sense of virtue
-- compassion and justice. For many, there is too much injustice and suffering just to ignore. On the other hand, balancing the needs of us and them beckons honest appraisal of situations and people. But where and how should our finger be pointed?
Core psychology of blame
Among the very earliest struggles in a person's life is the process of ego development. In its simplest, ego is about separating good from bad, self from other. Various theories and models strive to explain the ego, or its development, from various perspectives. For the purposes here, I will be referencing object relations theory
, which is part psychoanalytic psychology
and deals with very early development, starting at birth. A few things will be slightly simplified to keep the text concise.
Within this theory, the first several months involve what is termed the paranoid-schizoid position.
The "schizoid" aspect refers to a cognitive-emotional process known as splitting.
This is where external objects, including people, are split into opposing mental parts -- to form part objects,
or the "good object" version and the "bad object" version of each meaningful external object or phenomenon. For example, when the caregiver is gratifying to the infant, that part object is the "good caretaker"; and when not so gratifying, that caretaker is the "bad caretaker". At this stage of development and understanding, these two "part objects" are not
seen as from the same source. Rather, each is a separate thing appearing and disappearing as circumstances and feelings change. The key word here is separation,
which we will come back to later.
The other aspect of the paranoid-schizoid position -- the "paranoid" aspect -- refers to a curious side effect of splitting everything into "good" and "bad". Because each "part object" is either all good, or all bad, and because the appearance and disappearance of these mysterious entities is more-or-less out of control, the infant begins to resent and fear the bad objects that keep happening. That is, the baby hates
the bad objects but loves
the good objects. This is perhaps the very first stage of moral awareness -- raw, albeit mistaken judgement; love the good; hate the bad; pure, uninhibited attraction
As a result, or side effect, of these negative or aggressive feelings toward "the bad", the baby may fear possible persecution, invoking paranoia.
Strange though that may sound, there is a bit more to it.
Splitting, as between the mentioned "good" and "bad" objects, is only half the story. The other half of splitting is between "good self" and "bad self". That is, because in the paranoid-schizoid position, objects are temporary and impermanent, so too is the self temporary and fleeting. Moreover, the self is either in comfort, or in distress, giving either "good self" or "bad self" -- depending on circumstance. Since the "good self" appears with the "good object", and likewise the "bad self" with the "bad object", the child fears the appearance of the "bad object" even more. This is because its presence entails essentially collapse of the previous self-concept, as if to enter a realm of deserved persecution for being the "bad self" -- and hence the emergence of paranoia.
On an interesting aside, this manner of judging objects and selves as good or bad based solely on whether one is currently in comfort or pain is the essence of Stage 1
in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development
. This is a theory on the progression of individuals throughout life in moral reasoning. Stage 1, termed obedience and punishment orientation,
judges those in trouble or pain as inherently bad. In many cases, this view basically blames the victim.
Further, this type of reasoning is essentially the basis for the "might makes right" mindset seen in some cases of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). One thing to keep in mind is that we all start there, but not everyone stays there. In this way, having crude moral reasoning later in life is effectively a sign of delayed or regressed development, much like a disability -- ie. "morally disabled".
Completing the person
Eventually, the child will reach a point in development where objects become whole and persistent, able to have simultaneously negative and positive qualities. Objects or people may take on accounts, or balances, allowing for consideration of simple reciprocity, including guilt and reparation. Self and caregiver become distinct entities, where "good" self is no longer lost each time caregiver is absent or busy. Assuming successful progression, blame and judgement is no longer split dichotically between two extremes. Otherwise a new type of splitting is come, where objects and entities, though whole and persistent, are either idealised
An important key trend exists between consecutive steps of ego development. This is the trend of expanding persistence and relatedness.
In the part-object stage, objects appear and vanish -- some good, some bad. These raw appearances are neither persistent, nor related. In the whole-object stage, objects become persistent, although at first not really related. Because of this initial lack of relation, the secondary type of splitting -- idealisation and devaluation -- is still likely. Basically, since one person or object is fundamentally unrelated to another, including the self, there is "no harm" in seeing one as all good,
and another as all bad.
Without a stabilising relation, moral judgements can be whimsical yet extreme. A person or object may alternate between being embraced and discarded, depending on present feelings or arrangements. But what makes a stabilising relation?
In general, stabilising relations develop naturally through observation and reason. For example, a caregiver may through time be taken as an intrinsic part of one's need for support. Or a sibling may eventually be seen as fundamentally similar and related. But the building of these relations, or attachments, can be hindered by certain experiences or feelings. For instance, an unstable or unavailable caregiver may leave a child feeling resentment, shame, or guilt. These feelings may then get in the way of building an emotional bond. The resulting lack of security, mixed with possible shame or guilt for not being good enough, may lead to maladaptive and unstable boundaries and self-definition. Some common results are narcissism
and borderline personality
-- the former as an escape mechanism from feelings of inadequacy, and the latter as unstable border-lines between what is embraced, and what is rejected. These early childhood misgivings can then live on subconsciously, infiltrating the psyche and its future engagements.
Competition and judgement
While the capacity for blame and hate may emerge, as described above, from fundamental urges of attraction and repulsion -- mixed with innate capacity for making inference -- there is another powerful instinct at play. Complex social animals have a built-in game of gene-selection and mate-selection. This game relies on a simple heuristic, or objective -- form competitive hierarchies, and select those at the top.
The evolutionary assumption is that competition filters out less desirable code. Without reflection, this pre-configured notion may be taken at face value, often in fact elevated -- whether spoken or kept silent -- to something of religious adherence. But is the argument sound?
In simple times, back in the tribe, individuals tended to grow up closely-knit and fairly uniformly. Regardless which parents one had, pretty much everyone had access to the same quality of food, healthcare, and education. Tools and other amenities could readily be made or obtained by any abled body, often with only modest effort. As a result, there was, compared to modern times, an extremely
even playing field. Very little interfered with the above premise that those who achieved success in social hierarchy likely had something special inside. Sure, luck still played a part, but that part was not only far less significant than today, but also far more visible for those of simple tribes. In probably most cases, everybody knew when someone had encountered bad fortune, as individual stories were less hidden.
In the current age, however, personal merit is vastly more obscured and mangled by deceptive forces. The range of disparity in childhood resources and care, the long duration of schooling needed to be competitive, and the sheer price of admission into money-making pursuits, completely destroy any legitimacy the heuristic of selection by social hierarchy may previously have had. Luck may have played a part back then, but today the part played by the lottery of placement into a particular family, time, and place is riddled with inequity. On top of all that, the behaviours and exploits that set one person atop the next are lost from sight through the complex labyrinth of time, legalese, and the unfathomable size of modern society. Hence, the basis of soundness behind judging merit on personal outcome is no longer something that can be supported with any honesty. To praise or blame based on social status and wealth is to partake in folly.
Entity and arrangement defined Entities
are mental objects, and their social accounts, pertaining to people, groups, aggregates, and other moral agents. I say mental objects
for two basic reasons. One, individuals and groups change through time. As the saying goes:
"A person never steps into the same river twice; for on the second occasion, one is neither the same person, nor is it the same river" (paraphrased) ~ Heraclitus of Ephesus.
Two, while we may posit that physical substance seems to exist out there, beyond the mind, we nevertheless must work within our mental model, or worldview, when considering those entities and other things of material or mental reality. Hence, entities and objects can be cognised, or considered, solely as mental objects. This phenomenon of the mental becomes even more apparent when we consider the nature of not only being,
but identity, character,
and personal story.
None of these, from what I can tell, can rightly be said to exist outside the mind. Each has arbitrary, situation-specific, and continually shifting boundaries and connotations. Arrangements,
in contrast, are sets of objects; entities; their relative positions; their internal configurations; and their relations and interactions. Arrangements are hence the frameworks
in place either materially or logically between and within entities and or objects. Common examples include law, culture, contract, education, and social hierarchy -- but also the physical
placement of people and things.
Not surprisingly, the arrangements in place have substantial influence on the outcomes for individuals and society. The same person lowered into two different cultures and circumstances can be expected to have a different time. Education, ideas, values, struggles, and relationships may all be completely changed. The combinations of butterfly effect, disparity of opportunity, and idiosyncratic accident leave open the door for a wide variety of possibility.
Splitting and blaming the entity
Before talking about what to blame, or how to blame it, we might consider some phenomena which may influence one's ability to make sound judgement. As discussed previously, early development can play a big part in both the way one perceives and understands the world, and also the way one feels about, and hence reacts to, situations and challenges within the world. So let us look at some such phenomena. Splitting,
in the post-infancy sense, is the viewing of mental objects -- including and especially people -- as either idealised all good,
or devalued all bad.
The primary hypothesis goes something along the lines that a child who felt insufficiently loved or attended during infancy and early childhood may develop an internalised sense of unworthiness -- perhaps shame or guilt. In simple terms, the child may internalise a judgement of "not good enough". Since early, particularly pre-linguistic experiences tend to be deeply-seated and hard-conditioned, the person later in life may not only have little if any recall of such experience, but likely has little ability to reflect or challenge the resulting feelings or cognitive distortions. Basically, the only remnant clearly visible may be the feelings and intuitions themselves -- sense of shame, guilt, and never being good enough. However, as with other inescapable negative feelings, the child or later person is prone to forming habits of escape.
Most notably here, the person may partake in defence mechanisms
, or unconscious patterns of perception and thinking that seek to turn off or escape uncomfortable or stressful cognitions. Projection
is among the most used defence mechanisms. It involves taking an unwanted feeling or judgement, and throwing it upon someone or something else. The idea is to distance oneself from such negative connotations. In the case of internalised shame or guilt of being "not good enough" during childhood, the person is likely to begin casting this judgement upon others. Unreasonable or unattainable standards may be adopted. The world itself may be viewed as inherently broken or untenable. In the case of splitting specifically, black-or-white, all-or-none thinking may be employed to polarise objects or people -- including oneself -- into all good or all bad -- idealisation or devaluation. This type of projection sorts others into something of angels and demons. Furthermore, as in borderline personality disorder, these dichotic judgements may switch regularly depending on current affairs. The key thing to remember here is that projection is done to escape unfaceable feelings or judgements about oneself.
Use of this defence mechanism may shift blame from self to another, often in a way that is difficult or impossible for the user to see.
More broadly, splitting belongs to a class of phenomena known as cognitive distortions
. In addition to all-or-none thinking, cognitive distortions include overgeneralising, disqualifying the positive, jumping to conclusions, exaggeration, perfectionism, personalisation, always being right, and labelling of others. Obviously these all have significant implications for how one judges others, and indeed how one places blame. For the discussion here, let us talk about one more of these. Personalisation
is when a person takes the blame personally, regardless what external factors may be at play. This style of attribution is inherently self-deprecatory. Alternatively, blame may be placed entirely on another person or group. The distortion here is not that blame is occurring, but that the object is always a conventional moral agent, such as a human or AI. Essentially, an individual with this style of attribution may have an irrational tendency to place blame on agents, rather than circumstances. The trick is understanding why
As it turns out, the psychology behind placing blame
disproportionately on people and other agents, rather than arrangements, is driven by the instinct of social hierarchy.
Like brought up earlier, people have a tendency to compare and compete, judging one another into hierarchies of better and worse -- more or less worthy. The more insecure a person feels, or the more internalised shame or sense of inadequacy one has, the more the person may be compelled to cast blame on others. Put simply, insecurity activates the instinct of social hierarchy.
There are some noteworthy side effects to the habit of blaming the agent. One is scapegoating,
or the projection of a group's fears and insecurities onto an external object. In scapegoating, the object chosen is often little, if at all, related to the underlying problem or dysfunction. Rather, the group seeks to unload its insecurity onto an unlucky target. This behaviour is much like that done in narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). One might say that groups too, not just people, can have NPD. One common target of scapegoating is minorities, of pretty much any type, who are often blamed for internal inadequacies of the majority regime. Another side effect of blaming the agent is kicking the dog,
or chain reactions of blame shifting
where each rung of the social hierarchy blames the next rung, all the way to the dog. Similar to scapegoating, kicking the dog picks a target generally unable to defend itself. This style of attribution, moreover, is contagious within organisations, hindering legitimate consideration of how the true underlying issues can best be resolved.
False object of blame
A curious distortion of interest is blindly taking the mental as fact. In the extreme, there is a phenomenon known as psychic equivalence.
This is common in children, where the imagined monster under the bed is believed surely to exist. The line between mental and external is still thin. While most older individuals are beyond such explicit equivalence, we nevertheless have no other option for understanding reality than what our mind beholds. Whether for positive or negative, when we see or imagine someone, we are never seeing the real person. What we witness is our mental model, or mental object, of the other. The same goes for their view of us. When they behold us, they are really beholding someone else -- a construct of their imagination. Likewise, when we judge or blame another, we are really blaming someone else -- a monster of our own creation. Sometimes it can help to remember that in our mental, we are all mental.
Another defence mechanism
Aside from cognitive distortions, another key issue stands in the way of finding truth. In order to resolve deeply-seated emotional baggage, that baggage has to be opened. Yet doing so can be both painful and confusing. The mind has another trick up its sleeve to avoid facing the rain -- intellectualisation.
Many have heard of rationalisation,
or the making up of good-sounding stories to explain otherwise irrational or emotion-based actions and choices. Intellectualisation is related, but distinct. Instead of making up stories to seem more rational, intellectualisation makes up complex frameworks and red herrings to distract oneself and others from getting too close to the underlying feeling. Just like for splitting, the usual root cause is believed to be insecure attachment during infancy and early childhood. The result, especially later in life, is the excessive overreliance on logic and complex frameworks to avoid looking inside toward emotion. Reason becomes a comfortable hideout from hideous feeling. This disposition prevents proper reflection, making it hard or impossible to stop idealising and devaluing others. After all, one cannot stop spilling pain until one finds the source of that pain.
Relation to free will
The notion of free will comes in many definitions. These can get technical. But one fairly common theme is what they seek to support -- often some type of personal, or entity-centric, responsibility or blame. Regardless whether logically sound, the pursuit is in many cases a rationalisation of the instinctual and emotional urges of social hierarchy and ego defence. Essentially, many debates about free will are really struggles, or disagreements, on the nature of blame, and to where it should aim. In general, the belief in free will -- regardless the definition chosen -- is argued in support of some
type of entity attribution. Likewise, the disbelief
in free will is usually argued in support of system
attribution, or blaming the way society or culture is structured. A person may choose a definition specifically to assert the desired end -- a psychological phenomenon called motivated reasoning.
This text will avoid choosing a definition, as the underlying principles of behaviour are more important.
A less known paradox exists within the bounds of psychological agency. As is regularly discussed in certain circles of spirituality, there exists a spectrum of self-boundary between immediate, local, relative
and timeless, non-local, absolute.
This mental state of contraction or expansion
depends in part on the grasping or release of fear and attachment. For those unfamiliar, the felt sense of personal agency -- sometimes called doership
-- and one's associated beliefs about personal causation, are prone to change, or shift, depending on the present level of anxiety -- especially social and existential anxiety. There are two key aspects related to the sense of being in control.
The first aspect of interest is that of causal scope,
or how far we trace the causes and influences behind any given event or decision. For example, as I type this, among the most immediate, or smallest causal scopes, is that of my finger pressing a key. Moving toward greater scope, we may consider that the arm is moving the finger. Further, of course, one might say the body is doing the typing. But the scope need not end there. We can trace back through the causal chains, finding all manner of influence. After all, why do I care about this? What social factors and life experiences influenced this cause? The more immediate the causal scope, the longer and more encumbered the causal chains. Hence, even though when afraid we may focus on the more immediate, hence feeling more in direct control, the more our felt boundaries of self and causality contract, the more short-sighted, distracted, and materially-bound we are. The paradox is in the inverted pyramid of influence
atop our actions.
The second aspect relates to impulse and desire versus self-control and composure. Human desire may be divided broadly into basic animal instinct and social image. In Freudian terms, these would be id
The former is often viewed as impulsive or animalistic; the latter as controlled and composed. A meaningful portion of pro-free will arguments seems to equate or compare the composure and planning of socially-conscious actions and choices as representative of the essence of "free will". That is, more "controlled" or deliberate actions were exercising greater free will than their more impulsive or animalistic counterparts. But is this assessment sensible?
On the one hand, being more socially aware likely helps to prevent being manipulated or impeded by others. Most would probably agree thus far. But on the other hand, the more we care about fitting in, or otherwise playing the game of social hierarchy, the more we submit ourselves to social norms and other hive behaviours. Essentially, the more we care about image, the more we let society control us. Despite this emotional tether, those with the biggest egos often proclaim the greatest sense of self-determination. Certainly one could argue that being on top of the hierarchy usually entails greater access to social amenities, some of which offering greater freedom. But there may be some right reservations here. Firstly, the enhanced freedom of high status often comes with enhanced fitment and scrutiny into the externally-defined social mould. This is not always the case, as for example with dictators. But secondly, the vast majority of those playing the ego game are neither in positions of status and power, nor emotionally secure enough to go their own way toward personal happiness. Perhaps most prominently, for most social animals, the hive provides only minimal amenity, and maximal loss of autonomy. Yet the internalised ego and self-concept obscure this reality by making cultural, emotional artifacts of socialisation -- especially during childhood -- appear as self-chosen. The person is thus a product of upbringing, but because these aspects of conditioning are so deep and unconscious, their effects are simply taken for granted as part of who one is. Hence, a second paradox exists in that what may appear as evidence for free will -- ego and composure -- is in fact the very thing enacting the long-seated will of the hive.
On a different note of the free will debate, there seems to be a phenomenon somewhat like "free will of the gaps", where any unknown of psychology or physics is received wholeheartedly as evidence for freedom. While no doubt one may never really know, particularly when stuck in the subjective mind-box, one might consider the effect of splitting, or black-and-white thinking. This habit may, without enough reflection, colour one's assessment of personal agency as either wholly existing, or wholly absent. This is not to say undue burden and other explicit interference is unregarded, but more that even the mere existence of randomness or unpredictability may be taken as sufficient reason to ward off the behavioural influences and effects known by modern psychology. Remember that splitting is driven by egoic insecurity, and that ego has vested interest in building the narrative which best places oneself in the social hierarchy of the mind. Impulsive or controlled, what we choose is there to satisfy instinct, whether animalistic, or socially-focused.
Blaming the arrangement
On the other side of inferred causation -- after instinct -- we have experience, conditioning, and circumstance. Experience and conditioning are carry-overs from past
arrangement while circumstance reflects the present
arrangement. For simplicity, I will place all three simply under arrangement.
To borrow from earlier:
Arrangements ... are sets of objects; entities; their relative positions; their internal configurations; and their relations and interactions. Arrangements are hence the frameworks in place either materially or logically between and within entities and or objects. Common examples include law, culture, contract, education, and social hierarchy -- but also the physical placement of people and things.
With this definition in mind, what then does it mean
to blame the arrangement, and what benefit does so doing provide?
First, let us consider the standard Western approach. When we blame the entity,
we are accomplishing three fundamental ends:
- declaring a point of causal significance;
- downgrading social status;
- offloading correction;
On the first point, blaming the entity cuts off past influences, including deficiencies and inequalities in access to essential resources like health, respect, education, and experience. One might wonder why respect is included here. But remember the types of issue that arise from internalised shame, guilt, and feelings of inadequacy. These live on subconsciously, causing non-obvious impairments in judgement and performance. Plus they harm health and performance through elevated stress hormones.
On the second point, blaming the entity lowers its public appraisal, thus cutting off access to the types of resources just mentioned.
On the third point, blaming the entity places the burden of correction squarely on the already broken
component. For simple matters like enforcing social norms or decency, this type of blame is probably effective in most cases. But when we start looking at bigger matters, like health, education, intelligence, self-restraint, and general performance, the idea of forcing the suboptimal party to fix itself starts to break down. All these matters are heavily influenced by external circumstance through time. So telling the person to fix the resulting dysfunction is like telling them to rewrite their past environment, including their upbringing. Moreover, those from broken pasts are much more often the least
supplied -- in both resource and knowhow -- to make things better.
And this brings us to blaming the arrangement. If instead of burdening and downgrading the unfortunate entity, we recognise the conditions of success and failure, we can apply legitimate
effort toward enacting a better future. Obviously society as a whole is far
better equipped to improve not only the outcome of tomorrow, but the conditions of today. Some of us, by chance, receive the winning hand. This may be in genetics, family configuration, area of schooling, or maybe just missing detrimental accidents and injuries. What sense does it make to hoard the helpings of fate, thus preventing the wealth of shared development and growth? In a world literally brimming with technological advancement, is it really better for the majority to live polarised as minority winners and majority losers?
One might argue that blame and praise are natural and effective tools for motivation and modification of behaviour. Natural though they may be, these tools are premised on the limited knowledge and resources of tribal past. Like using a hammer to insert a screw, messy tools ought to be reserved for desperate times only. Modern medicine, psychology, and sociology offer a new toolbox, today readily available, for resolving problems with minimal collateral damage. True, not everyone has fair access to these modern amenities, and that is exactly why we need to stop blaming the victim. The technology is here. We simply need to open the gates.
Another common argument is that absent of pointing fingers, people would lose motivation, or stop caring. There may be some truth here. If we remove the whip from their backs, the slaves may begin to relax. But is that really a bad thing? Per-capita material output is already worlds higher due to automation and tooling. But artificial scarcity is brought in to "keep up the morale". This scarcity is largely in the form of wealth and income inequality, which ensure the true producers of wealth -- the workers -- are kept chasing their imagined carrot. The effect, in practice, is burnout and learned helplessness.
The secondary effect is thus decreased performance, which is then "solved" with ever greater artificial scarcity, perpetuating the cycle of lies and suffering. Instead of entertaining a system of slavery with extra steps, why not more equally distribute the tools and technology of efficiency and success?
A darker argument that occasionally gets said out loud is that excessive competition and suffering help to weed out the less desirable traits. Often, it is proclaimed, nature wanted it that way. Ignoring the obvious lack of compassion, is this argument sound? The simple answer is no.
The longer answer is not even a little.
There are two main reasons. Firstly, the dirty game of filtering by social hierarchy was not only sloppy for its original environment of small tribes, but is completely unfit for modern, complex, abstract society. As explained previously, the legitimacy of individual merit is no longer known by fellow tribespeople. Wealth generation and extraction are too far removed and abstracted for proper outside judgement. And complex systems of power and propaganda further prevent equitable distribution of the fruits of labour. Secondly, the amount of time needed for such mechanisms of trait filtering to make an appreciable difference are substantially
longer than the time from now before technology will allow superior
selection of traits. There will be no need to compete in the sloppy ways of the past; nor any need to compete at all. The problem of selection is soon resolved. AI is entering the exponential phase. Petty and primitive worry about traits is irrelevant, for multiple reasons. If anything, those unable to understand this are unfit to be making policy decisions.
An argument which comes up enough to mention is that without blaming the entity, criminals would have free reign, able to do whatever they wanted without repercussions. This argument is missing something quite substantial about what is entailed by blaming the arrangement. Simply, if a certain person is believed to lack the self-control for certain situations or positions, that person will be kept away from those circumstances. A common example is driver's licensing, where one must earn
the privilege by proving competence. And similarly to that, if someone is blatantly acting out and causing trouble, obviously they would be put somewhere safer. The key is rearranging circumstances as needed for best outcome while maintaining reasonable maximum personal autonomy -- without unnecessary harm, restraint, or loss of dignity. Yes, this is more involved in terms of resources and labour, but that is what technology is for. Naturally people prefer to have more privilege, and that alone is motivation enough to care.
And before someone accuses this approach of being or supporting a social credit system, we must make clear the difference. In social credit systems, blame is placed on the individual !
Sure, the factors used may involve family and acquaintance, but the burden of correction still goes to the person or small group. This is completely different from what is being proposed here.
A final argument relates to expense. On the surface -- especially from within the perspective of a system based on artificial scarcity and excessive wealth inequality -- the idea of having surplus means available for long-term planning may seem unfathomable. People's reluctance in this regard can be understood. But as mentioned above, we are presently, for presumably the first time in our recorded history, entering the age of exponential growth toward advanced artificial intelligence. Things are moving fast already, and both hardware and software are showing no slowing. If computational capacity continues to double regularly like it has for a long time now, we are probably looking at readily accessible post-human intelligence within five to ten years. Short of disaster or tyrannical interference, existing worries about labour and intellect shortage should soon evaporate. Yes, this time things are
different. There is no known precedent.
Our natural instinct may tell us to blame the person. And Western culture may polarise this tendency to the extreme. But with a little understanding of why we feel the need to downsize others, we may be able to mend the splitting within us. Society may be designed around a game of hierarchy, but one need not partake. By knowing the factors that promote or inhibit wellbeing, and by using the knowledge and tools of modern, we can cast off the shallow assumptions behind us, to build something worth keeping. The first step is looking inside, to see the feeling that fears connection. Then we may look outside, to see that most are facing similar struggle. Situations are what make or break the person. If one should blame, blame the arrangement. The past may not be one for changing, but greater compassion today can find greater love tomorrow.
Rengoku and Deku fight to the death. Who wins? Both sides have their standard equipment and abilities and skills. Neither side gets prep time. They start 25 feet away from each other. The fight takes place in UA.
As we are preparing for the series finale of the owl house called watching and dreaming, I am going to predict how the finale plays out
Continuing from " For the Future" Luz now with a Palisman named Stringbean and her friends are facing the final battle against the collector who is now manipulated by Belos himself, the collector trapped Luz in a dreamscape which will be used to break her spirit and turn her into one of his puppets but her friends snaps Luz out of her despair and break free from the collector dreamscape just before Luz's friends are caught by the collector and turned into puppets.
Luz after being free from the dreamscape is shocked in tears that her friend made a heroic sacrifice in freeing her from the scary dreamscape but she has no time to mourn as she must diverge herself from the collectors wrath before she turned into a puppet like her friends, then Luz encounters Eda and King leading to a heartwarming union however it was cut short when the collector finds them and put them in some of his games (just like in the promo) but the trio fight back and defeat the collector.
Belos (in Raine's puppet body) witness this, so he possesses the nearly defeated collector and take control of his body, transforming them both into a scary like demon and attacks the trio , so Luz,Eda and King use their magic to attack the combined Belos collector monster from the inside then the trio witness both of the collectors backstories perhaps to see how the collector ends up all alone when he diverge himself from his godlike parents after their encounter with the titans and how Belos furiously kill his elder brother Caleb Wittebane when he married an ancestor of Eda Clawthrone and after the tragic backstories which is for him a betrayal, Luz ,Eda and King after witnessing both the collector and belos past use their magic to finally separate belos from the collectors body and transform the boiling isles back to its former glory especially the residents who were statues and puppets into normal beings again including Luz's friends and then Belos after he revert back to the mortal form of Philip Wittebane rapidly ages into an old man until he turns into a skeleton and then dust leaving only a skull (and believe me it's going to be frightening and scary to younger viewers)
and after everything is back to normal in the boiling isles and with Belos defeated and dead for real this time Luz,Eda and King are reunited with their loved ones with tears of joy but then they turn towards the defeated ,slightly depowerd and disappointed collector who asks them if they would probably seal him again like last time. But after Luz,Eda and King witness the collectors backstory as he was just a lonely kid who misses his family after their conflict with the titans and return to their world not to mention that King sympathize with him, Luz along with her friends forgive the collector and so with the help of some magicians they returned the collector to his world and reunite with his family,
Then it is Luz and her mother Camila's turn as they must return to their world through the portal so that Luz might take some time off from her magical adventures for a while , she then says goodbye to her friends along with her girlfriend Amity including her friend and mentor Eda and king and promise to them, she will come back , Eda then gives Luz a portal key and assures her that she can come back to the boiling isles anytime she likes and after some goodbyes and farewells, Luz and Camila returned to their world through the portal door where Vee who was outside the Noceda resident was waiting for them.
Then many years later , Luz is now a college young adult loosely based on her beta appearance but with the same hairstyle and a long coat , she is about to leave for college with a bag and says goodbye to her mother Camila and then tells Vee ( in her human form but still unaged in her pre-teen form) to take care of Camila and as Camila and Vee went inside back to their house, Luz however in reality is about to go back to the boiling isles as she is shown taking her palisman Stringbean out of her bag and opens the portal back to the boiling isles, there things have changed as the boiling isles is now peaceful and is no longer under the monarchy of Belos but democracy instead as shown with Lilith now a democratic leader with good leadership, Luz is shown reunited her friends and her girlfriend Amity who was waiting for her , then she meets the now older Eda (who is married to Raine) and King (now grown to a medium-sized titan) who are glad to see Luz again as a young confident adult woman, and the final scene of the series has Eda asking Luz "Ready to continue where we left off kid ?" Luz answered while holding her palisman Stringbean with confidence, saying, "Let's do this."
And then we are treated to a series finale credits (like the previous 2 season 3 episodes) where we see a where are they now to every characters of the series, Camila and Vee are living peacefully at the Noceda residence while webcam chat with her daughter Luz to see how she is doing in the boiling isles, then we see the romantic couples of the owl House fandom going on a date together such as Luz and Amity, Willow and Hunter and Eda and Raine who are now a happy couple there will also be a where are they now moment to Guz who is now a professor and goes to Earth in search of another "human relic" , king who does his thing as usual, a shot of Lilith continue her leadership of the boiling isles,some other shots of the rest of the supporting characters of the owl house as they live peaceful lives, Kikimora who is now imprisoned in a small cell and is still in her rage mode because a group of Passersby is now laughing and mocking her, then a shot of Belos remaining human skull as it resides in the museum marked as "the remain of a cruel dictator" , a shot of the collector now in his home world happily leaving with his reunited family and then the final shot of the credits ends with Luz,Eda and king looking over the boiling isles in their flying brooms ending the series.
And that's my prediction for watching and dreaming, what do you think?
Why in the youtube open beta teaser is every class previewed as a black woman besides one black man? As an Asian American man, can we can get at least one Asain character? Will they let me make a asian character. Even in the cinematic trailer, it's a bald black lady vs dominate demon lady. We get it, you support women, and blacks while also wanting us to beat our pecker to demon chicks. Woman power, ya ya - you go girl.
I hope everyone has a good day and god bless you all!
Disclaimer: first time watcher here.
I don't like this one and felt really bored while watching it. It looks like some sort of mixture of Beyond The Sea, Die Hand die verletzt and Pusher, all three are brilliant, but Dæmonicus just doesn't do it for me. It's also partially too predictable.
And it actually upsets me a lot, considering that I was willing to give this season a chance. I like Doggett as a character, not yet so sure about Reyes, but I genuinely thought that it was an interesting idea to make them partners, though they don't do it for me as well so far. Maybe I'm wrong and it gets better, I just need to wait a little longer. I mean, after all, the first MOTW of s8 wasn't really good for me too, but things did get better.
Yet there are so many things in this episode that drew me away. Don't get me wrong, the setting itself and the way the episode was shot are pretty nice, it's also not bad to have something demonic related, and I don't think that episode's title revelation was that bad. Also actors do a pretty good job with what they've been given and that doctor thinking Reyes was insane was top-tier. But that's it.
It's been since season 8 (aside from Roadrunners and probably Per Manum's flashbacks) that I wanted to say it but was holding on for a hope. Now the later is almost comeplety gone, so I'm gonna do it. I don't like the way Scully is written in s8 and at the beginning of s9. She used to be my absolutely favorite character: smart, independent, incredibly strong and admirable person, who never gives up and gives in, who was able to fight her cancer, who lost a lot, but still had the spirit. She could be vulnerable, could make mistakes, which actually made her even more relatable. Aside from that, she is a really well trained agent, amazing scientist and extremely professional medical doctor. It all seems to lack here. And it's shown in this episode. It's not the first time Scully just performing autopsies without being in the field, we've seen it in s2, but for me it worked way better then. The show doesn't seem to know what to do with or how write her in the plot. We see her being grabbed by that man, what a great opportunity to show her skills, but no, eventually the guy just shot himself and it all happened off screen. Also I didn't really like the way they decided to write her at the end as someone who needed explanation and without the body was completely sure about who was shot.
The other thing I didn't actually like was the attempt to give Doggett's work on the X Files some purpose aside from his son's tragedy. Yeah, I'm talking about that bizarre love triangle coming out of the blue. Like was it really necessary? I thought John was doing it all because he saw a glimpse of the truth and all the conspiracy. His investigation of Kersh, after all, seemed to be driven by it. Why did they need to imply his romantic feelings so explicitly and repeatedly? Could not we have three agents just working together as normal people without someone being in love with someone? I've always loved X Files for its almost complete lack of these soap opera elements, I'm especially not a fan of them now. Besides, why compare Doggett with Mulder? They are different, but that's what makes them both interesting for unrealeted and different reasons. Thanks for the reminder that Mulder had Oxford education, though.
Also what was it about the sample? Was is indeed the product of thelepatic connection? I thought it was important up until it was dropped comepletely.
Anyway, sorry for nitpicking. As a viewer who was very careful during the first couple of seasons and skeptical but grew to love the show, I really take such disappointment a bit personal. And I guess it's the first Spotnitz episode in a long time that I absolutely didn't like.
Sorry for the grammar mistakes, English is not my first language.
We were 3 players, in a homebrew world. For context, it was humans, demons (at war with humans) and elves (slaves).
The cast is me, an immortal human (253 years old) who has soul magic and can wield a sword. Soul magic is simply making your soul take shape in the physical world, which was a shield for my character.
There's Zanne, human knight, former noble, racist and homophobic... every flaw under the sun (the character, not the player). She was mainly using a gun.
Another player was there, an idiot demon disguised as a human, who we'll name Clem.
Let's get the nonsense started... The plot was a diplomatic mission to discover new countries beyond the already known border. We were accompanied by the prince of the country and by exorcists, elite humans who were capable of magical and physical prowess. (We didn't have 1 DMPC with us but 2... at least.)
A ball takes place, the leader of the exorcist troop invites Clem to come with him, his troop and the prince in a bar a few streets away. Zanne receives the same invitation. This... was not my case. No problem though, my character dances and has fun. Then... roll for perception.
Silhouettes are hidden outside. A strange man enters, smug and with a powerful aura. I understand that we are in danger. It's an hight Mage and he wants to see the prince, alone and in private. He also mention something about life, death and ressurection (which we would discover later is a cult thing).
I warn my character's "master", Tristan (my character was a nobleman's guard) and Tristan just gets... dumb. He starts yelling at me, asking me what I did, even though I had just warned him that there was an ambush outside and to be careful. I try to diffuse the situation because I'm now stuck between the pnj who has become a total jerk and the strange man, who is watching evreything unfold with a sinister grin.
Of course, a fight starts because the Hight Mage doesn't get what he want (the prince) and he now know we know it's a trap, since Tristan yelled it anyway. The guards are killed instantly. I can't fight because the magic power of the sinister man is ice and apparently, my soul shield lets the cold through. Moments later, the exorcists arrive, a tornado pops (don't ask why, it's another cultist pnj who did it), I protect my character with his shield...
Conclusion of the railroaded fight?
The prince wasn't kidnapped (because that was clearly what was supposed to happen, even if I don't know how with the prince absent from the place himself), my character lost the use of his 2 arms (they were remplaced with molds ones by a mage but 1) yurk and 2) i'm salty about it.), plus half of his purse that I had to use to save the life of my character's best friend. The others two pjs were fine tho.
However, the craziest part was the following: the DM made a pause in the rp because he didn't know how to continue his scenario... while it was HIS pnjs who invited the 2 other players somewhere else... and it was HIS pnj who made the fight break out during the ball and I couldn't do anything anyway... He railroaded a scenario that he couldn't continue... and that was just the beginning.