Masada

Thanks. A few of us are working on a draftboard for worldbuilding and illustrating the concepts further. I'm considering adapting in some of the mechanics from bombshoo's Krahesteg NES after I get some feedback from the collaborators.

Currently it's NK, TMG and me, with Iggy joining in hopefully after his finals wind down. Let me know if you'd like to join the development council and I can email you the link to the Google document. Though naturally I would understand if you're busy with your own NES, which by the way I will get to as soon as my own finals are complete.

My blurb will be in today!

Hey man, I love you. Do you love me, too?

article funtimez. You don't get better polemic than this, one of the best NSFWCorp articles I've read. About microfinance and general neoliberal asshattery.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/extraordinary-pierre-omidyar/fa5a929f172703ff64c45a5892f49ad64fe510c8/

Oh man. You are a god among man. That made my morning.

Your face.

Nice nonsequitur. I don't recall ignoring anything you've said to me.

You know, putting [sic] after behaviour in your sigline makes you look ignorant of non-US English spellings.

It's not really "avoiding". I just can't be bothered to get on unless somebody wants me there for a specific discussion.

I know, which is probably why he gets it quicker than others might. But I meant more the aspect of him being seen saying it and getting it, since as a rich white man NOW he has more "authority" and more air-time and a greater capacity to reach people than ever would if he were missing even one of those aspects (rich, which, or male). It's very easy to lose track of the truth one knows from their humble origins once one escapes those origins, especially in a society like ours where such positions are seen as shameful, and becoming wealthy is referred to as "success." If Brand has successfully resisted that, as this interview heavily suggests, then good on him. Good on him for being a willing traitor to his present social class.

Oh yes, I've seen it. If a rich white guy gets it, then maybe there is hope. But Brand ain't startin' no revolution by himself.

Ah, I see. Not yet cleared to have a genuine human conversation with you.

Just to be clear- you're a Christian?

I have no objection to either of your diplomatic notes, though our exact response is to be dictated by our other outstanding military commitments.

I'm not saying I thought it was a brilliant book because I'm desperate to mention any woman writer that I like, I'm saying it's brilliant because I consider it to be the best version of the King Arthur story period (basically every other version was written by a man).

Well to be fair I consider myself something of an 'anti elitist' in both my taste for literature as well as what I write myself. And to simply put it, anything deemed 'srs' (this tends to be the snobby stuff) I would never want to write, much less read myself, so there's that.

I (mostly) surround myself with the very literature you guys are saying 'doesn't count', so maybe that's why I don't even notice what you guys are talking about.

edit: what do you mean all the writers I've cited? You don't think 'The Hollow Hills' by Mary Stewart doesn't fall under one of the categories you mentioned? The story of King Arthur is anything but 'girly'. And granted her version (unlike the disney version or anything else remotely 4kids) goes into brutal detail for both sex and violence. Really I think the book could have been written by a white christian male and would have had roughly the same commercial success.

What do you mean by 'it hasn't happened yet' when referring to 'we're less sexist now than in the past'. Not to say sexism (especially against women) is no longer a thing, but do you really think we've made no progress at all in like, 100 years?

the only way we can know if any work of art is 'lasting' or not is by seeing if it... lasts. The problem is, that pretty much means going back a minimum of 50 years ago, and even then the patriarchy (even within fiction writing) was much worse than it is now, and pretty much the further you go back the worse it gets.

That said I fail to see how I could be preferring 'androcentric' literature when I'm the one that actually reads stuff from modern times, where female writers- and for that matter writers of color (although to a lesser extent, sadly) are represented far more than 100 years ago. The reason why people almost only think of white males when they think of 'the classics' is because in the timeframe that 'the classics' consists of, white males were the only one given the opportunity to get published.

All I'm saying is in modern times that's no longer the case, or at the very least, far less of a case than it was say, in the days of Fitzgerald and Heimmingway.

You know, christos200 actually has a point. You call anyone and everyone racist and/or sexist just because you simply don't agree with them 100%.

Even if you're mostly right when you accuse people of being racist/sexist (which you're not, the vast majority of the time) you still end up looking like a self-righteous jackass for being so confrontational. You've never even accused me of being a racist for the record but you've done it to other posters so much I get tired of reading your posts.

Are you like this in real life? Go around and getting offended by anything that doesn't meet your self righteous standards?