Justin_Case001

Disclaimer: moderate spoilers. Spoilers will be fairly vague without names or specific details and won't ruin the show, but if you're interested in Disney's The Lion Guard and want a completely spoiler-free experience, then watch it before proceeding. One of my complaints about Friendship is Magic was their refusal to touch the beginning or end of life. I always thought it was kinda weak and lame that they were forbidden to actually have a character die for real (as opposed to ambiguously disintegrated by friendship rainbow lasers). I wish that they had had the stones to actually properly kill a villain. I suggested this a number of times on the forums, and each time the response would be, "well, c'mon, they can't actually kill a character. That would be too intense for a kid's show," to which I would always reply, "Ursula, Scar, Gaston, Judge Frollo..." And then they'd go, "...oh... yeah... I guess you're right. I also think that FIM should have killed off a good character. No, not a main character, but a lesser, background good-guy character. I think that an episode that tastefully, tactfully, and sensitively dealt with the death of, say, a grandparent, could have been one of the most powerful, poignant, and useful stores of the entire show. When I've floated this idea, I've been met with a similar response--"Well, c'mon, they can't actually kill a good character in something made for kids!" Uh huh. Right. Mufasa, Bambi's mom, Anna and Elsa's parents, Tadashi Hamada. C'mon, Hasbro. Are you gonna let Disney keep kicking your ass at this? A couple blogs back, I talked about how I've been marathoning through every animated Disney sequel and spin-off on Disney+, mostly as an MST3K experiment to see how bad they are. I've been pleasantly surprised by quite a few gems. I recently watched Lion King II: Simba's Pride. It was good. It certainly didn't beat the original, but good. Then I checked out the Timon & Pumbaa show from the 90s. I would be remiss if I didn't go a quick tangent to mention this. So... um... what to say. *Sigh*, *shakes head*, *chuckles*, *facepalms*. Uuuummm.... Okay, look, if you really want to know what it's like, you know how to use Google. I'll just say that my primary question is whether or not Disney considers this show to be official canon in The Lion King franchise. I mean, seriously, I would love to talk face-to-face with Disney's CEO, or whoever the right person is, and just ask them--is the Timon & Pumbaa show official Lion King canon--yes or no? If it's supposed to a tongue-in-cheek spoof that's not canon, then I guess I can excuse it. If it's official canon, then it is absolutely the worst piece of entertainment that humankind has ever created, bar-none, period. It's worse then the Star Wars Christmas Special. It's the most heinous desecration and obliteration of a franchise's lore that I've ever seen. It makes The Last Jedi look like a timeless masterpiece of the highest order. But look, I'm sure it's not supposed to be taken as canon. But either way, I found it to be tedious, boring, lazy, and completely un-funny. And look, I'm not averse to zany slapstick. Rocko's Modern Life is one of my favorite cartoons of all time. But Timon & Pumbaa just plain sucked. I couldn't survive more than a few episodes. Then I moved on to the much newer Lion Guard. I had seen some clips and it looked good, so I had high hopes going in. It did not disappoint. After the vomitorium that was Timon & Pumbaa, I'm so thrilled that The Lion King franchise got the treatment it deserved with a proper series. The Lion Guard is The Mandalorian of The Lion King franchise--it did for The Lion King what Mando did for Star Wars. TLG is a lovingly crafted, spectacular show that faithfully and loyally handles and expands upon The Lion King lore, and treats it with the utmost respect. If you loved TLK, then you would absolutely love TLG, and you should absolutely watch it. Now, to be fair, there are some shortcomings to pick at--namely some corny, cliche villains with rather bland motivations. And songs. Too many songs. FIM had the right balance, and the songs were good. TLG packed in too many, and most were pretty bad. That's basically it. Otherwise, it's overwhelmingly great. I'm not going to talk about much of the plot here, but suffice it to say that it captured the feel of the movies and expanded on the lore brilliantly. Also, to my utter surprise and delight, it closes the door to every apparent continuity error with TLK2: Simba's Pride perfectly. It seemed like it was going to be a minefield of continuity errors at first, but every single one of them is resolved, and they managed to do it in a genuine way without it ever feeling contrived. Instead of making up a convenient excuse to fix a continuity error, it felt as though they told am important and natural story that, just by sheer coincidence, happened to completely resolve a continuity error. Well... there was one little thing--Kiara's coloring. She was supposed to have the yellow-orange male coloring. That's how she looked in Simba's Pride. But they changed her to have the cream-tan coloring of all the other females. I don't know what possessed them to do that, but that was the only continuity error, and the only thing that really ground my gears. Otherwise, perfect continuity. But where TLG really shines is in it's handling of the beginning and end of life. In addition to Pony being forbidden to even mention death, I also thought it was kinda lame that they were forbidden from showing a pregnant Cadance, or depicting Flurry's birth in any way. Impossible for a kid's show, you say?? Well, The Lion Guard does both, and it does it beautifully. TLG featured an episode that showed a pregnant zebra, complete with a kid-friendly, non-graphic birth scene. It was emotional, touching, and meaningful. It also featured an episode where Simba attends the funeral of old elephant friend. Also touching, and beautifully done. They have the most wonderful phrase that they use for when a character dies. They often say, "he/she has completed his/her journey through the circle of life." I love that. But they also weren't shy about stating that Simba's friend had "passed away." The pinnacle of the series by far, however, was an episode where a fairly primary character confronts the death of her grandmother. The episode is actually preceded by a disclaimer which reads, "This episode contains strong, emotional depictions of the circle of life, and may be intense for very young viewers. Parents are encouraged to watch with their children." Now, see? That's how you do it! Don't shy away from the important stuff. Just include the disclaimer so can't nobody say you didn't warn 'em! In that episode, the character sits with her elderly grandmother on her deathbed, who gives her granddaughter some final words of love and encouragement before passing away. The entire scene is incredibly meaningful and achingly beautiful. It's one of the best scenes I have ever seen in any animated kid's show or movie. That scene is also, as far as I can recall, the only instance I have ever seen in animated kid's show or movie where a character actually dies on camera. What I mean is, the only example I can think of where we actually see that final transition from life to death clearly without cutting away. In that scene, we see a close-up of the grandmother's face as she utters her final words, then slowly lays her head down, closes her eyes, and she's gone. I can't think of any other time when that's happened. Bambi's mom died off-camera. Gaston and Frollo fell to their deaths and disappeared from view before we saw them land. Ursula was skewered and sank with the ship, but I don't think we really say the moment of death. Maybe that one's a grey area. We only saw Scar's silhouette fall as the hyenas mauled him. Anna and Elsa's parents died at sea off-camera. Tadashi Hamada was blown-up off-camera. That's only Disney, of course, but I can't think of any other kid's stuff that killed characters, either. I mean, I'm sure there are some, I just can't think of any. The point is, I felt like the death scene in TLG was rather unprecedented, brave, and absolutely beautiful. It was also incredibly useful and important. A story like that can potentially help children handle the death of a loved one, or even a pet. As much as I love FIM, TLG absolutely kicked Pony's ass at depicting birth and death. The beginning and the end are critically important parts of the circle of life--they absolutely should be dealt with in kid's shows, and they absolutely can be with care, love, and sensitivity, and The Lion Guard shows us how. It can be argued that the true measure of the quality of a piece of art is how long it lives in your memory after you've seen it. How often do you think about it? How often does something remind you of it? The Lion Guard hasn't left my mind since I finished watching it, and that death scene will stay with me for a long, long time. Hevi kabisa was this show good.

Hey. Y'know what really grinds my gears? When commercials claim that a show or movie is the "THE NUMBER ONE SHOW/MOVIE IN THE WORLD/COUNTRY!!" First off, what the f*ck does that even mean? For a movie, does it mean most ticket sales? In what time period? For a show, does it mean highest viewership? Highest ratings? Sometimes I think that they just make this sh*t up for commercials. I don't think there's any liability whatsoever. I think that any advertiser is allowed to say that their thing is "NUMBER ONE" without any requirement for truth or evidence or anything like that. It's not a legally binding statement, so they can just fling it around all they want because it sounds good. I don't think any of the data matters. In fact, I know it's often bullsh*t, because I know I've seen multiple commercials for different shows or movies at the same time, like sometimes on the same day, that all say some variety of their thing being #1. It's so f*cking stupid.

Exactly. Well said. Thank you. And 42, all due respect, but I just don't think that you're acknowledging that many creative, artistic people are actually passionate about their craft, expressing themselves, telling a story, etc, and would genuinely want to do so even if they weren't threatened with starvation. Yes, most people only work because they need money, and yes, we all need money. Of course. But I genuinely believe that artistic creators would want to create even if they didn't need the money, regardless of deadlines. If we had a Star Trek/Orville world, I don't believe that most people would just lay around and watch tv and play games for the rest of their lives just because they can. That would get really boring. People want to create stuff. I think that Quark's line about greed is demonstrably false, even in today's world. There are many altruistic people who do things for others with no material reward, and many creators who make things just because they want to tell a story. I'm not saying that's most people, but there are many. I still believe that a post-scarcity, post money world is possible. It's not likely we'll reach it, but I still believe it's possible.

Forgive me for dreaming of a world where workers have better working conditions and a sane amount of hours per week. I want that for everyone, not just game devs. I want it for you, too. I don't care whether it's construction or sitting a computer--nobody should have to work 80 hours a week. I know that we've engineered a world in which many people do have to in order to maintain the status quo we've created, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's within our reach to create a better world. It surprise you to learn that many game developers are passionate about their art, and they want to make games. Many of them would eagerly create games even without a looming deadline. There are many indie game studios in which devs are treated like human beings, have freedom and flexibility, and actually have fun, and they make some of the most fun and brilliant games of all time. It turns out that humans don't actually need to be treated like disposable robots, working under constant threat of deadlines, and under the lash of the guards in order to create great art. In fact, most creators work better when they're... y'know... happy. What's more, when creative people are left to their own devices, they generally want to... wait for it... create! People who pursue game development generally do so because they have a passion for it and want to create. It's not a job you take because you just need money and it was the only thing you could find. I do not believe that removing game development deadlines would result in every game dev just pretending to look busy so they could get paid for doing nothing. (Same goes for film making.) More big picture, I still believe that we should be trying to move towards a utopian, Star Trek future in which work is meaningful and fulfilling, not a threat and ultimatum--work or die. We should be trying to create a world in which people can choose a path to reach their full potential, not a world in which people have to earn the right to eat by "busting their ass" for 80 hours a week. But we'll never get there if nobody believes it can happen, or worse still, if people actively come up with reasons why it can't happen. Now, don't get me wrong--I'm no optimist. I'm sure we'll probably destroy ourselves, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop advocating for utopia.

I never said anything like that. Employees would still be required to work during their work day. If an employee just f*cked around all day, then they'd understandably be fired. I'm just saying that employees should only be required to work 40 hours a week and no more, and the game will be finished when it's finished.

I don't think I need to spend much time explaining the problem of horrendously overworked employees at triple-A game studios to anyone here. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past decade, I'm sure you're well aware of the so-called "crunch" times at big game studios where employees are forced to work 80 hours a week to meet deadlines. The one that has probably gotten the most attention was Rockstar with RDR2. I think we're all on the same page here--I don't think a single one of us common folk are in favor of this practice. We all want a change. We all want game studio employees to be cared for and treated with respect, and not like disposable robots. The only ones who want to continue working employees to the bone are the owner classes who profit from it. I think that's self-evident. But here's what has me flummoxed, something I just can't figure out--developers enter this crunch period to get games out "on time", right? But... on time... for what?? Seriously. For what?! Who sets these arbitrary deadlines, and why? There are certainly some instances in life where deadlines matter, but it seems to me that deadlines have absolutely no meaning or purpose whatsoever when it comes to entertainment, particularly video games. Why does any game need to be released at a specific time? What--is somebody gonna die if it's released late?! Why is there even a concept of "late"? How can a game even be "late"?? It's only late if you set an arbitrary date and then fail to meet it. Why even set a date? Why have deadlines at all? What's the point? Here's a novel idea: no deadlines for video games. None. Employees work 40 hours a week. No more. They have free time and days off. The game is finished when it's finished and no sooner. Why can't that work? We'd have to wait longer for triple-A titles. Boo f*cking hoo. You'll live. I think you can find enough to do. I literally (not figuratively, but literally) have more unplayed, untouched games in my Steam library than I'll be able to finish in a lifetime, and that's if I stop buying games forever, right now, which I obviously won't do. You don't even need to spend money nowadays to have more games than you know what to do with. The idea that we need the next entry in the triple-A franchise RIGHT NOW is laughably ridiculous. Trust me, you can wait an extra year. Would you rather be patient, wait a little longer for the game and have the devs be treated with respect and be happy and healthy, able and eager to keep making games, or would you rather have the game 6-12 months earlier at the cost of grinding the devs into dust, destroying their sanity, sapping their will to live, and forcing them to quit because they can't take it anymore. I dunno, call me crazy, but I'd kinda rather have the former. Why do they force these arbitrary deadlines on developers? Is it for the "holiday season"? Pffft. Gimmie a break. F*ck that sh*t. Do they think gamers won't buy it if it's not for Christmas? That's bullsh*t. Gamers are gonna buy the game no matter what. If they actually lose a few sales because they miss the Christmas season, then boo f*cking hoo. Small price to pay to treat your employees like human beings. Why can't we just let entertainment creators create their thing, and when it's done, it's done. Simple as that. Just wait and buy the game when it's done. What the f*ck does it matter when it is? Why have deadlines at all? Game studio deadlines need to go away. Forever. That's it. This one was short enough that it could have been a GMG, but I wanted in here. *EDIT* I now have a very good piece of evidence to support my claims. Do you know what you get when you give a studio the freedom to just make what they want to make without being beholden to deadlines and corporate bullsh*t? You get Baldur's Gate 3, that's what.

Lol! Yup. Looks interesting. Thanks for the links! Already spoke my peace on this. My blog entry about G5 is linked in the OP.

*Relatively spoiler-free* I absolutely love Disney movies, especially the animated classics of the Disney renaissance. Beauty & the Beast is one of my favorite movies of any kind of all time, and The Little Mermaid also holds a special place in my metaphorical heart. I'm also a person who loathes and despises half-assed, crappy, cash-grab sequels, unwelcome belated continuations, and basically any other poorly-executed, lore-damaging entries in franchises. I often wish that movies/shows could just be standalone--one good series or movie, then let it rest and leave it alone. But I already did a rant about this. When I love any movie, my knee-jerk reaction to the announcement of a sequel is invariably: I think I can be forgiven for having this reaction. After all, Hollywood's habit of desecrating beloved franchises with garbage sequels and continuity-destroying continuations knows no bounds. The animated Disney classics are integral parts of my childhood, but for my whole life, I have adamantly refused to watch almost all sequels to any of these movies. Little Mermaid 2 & 3, Beauty & Beast: Enchanted Christmas, Cinderella 2 & 3--these abominations seemed like nothing but heinous, sacrilegious cash grabs to me. I refused to watch them out of principle. In my mind, they could do nothing but damage the lore. Fast-forward to today--my family subscribes to Disney+. I started browsing the animated movie collection to catch up on a few gems that had slipped by me all these years. (I had never gotten around to WALL*E, for example.) I also looked at some of the crappy sequels, just reading the descriptions out of morbid curiosity. Then I had a fun idea: I decided on a whim that I would watch every single crappy sequel. Why? I dunno. Because they're there? Because they're all free as long as we subscribe? Just for the fun of seeing how bad they are? I think it was mostly for the MST3K value. The challenge was to watch every stupid, garbage, crappy Disney thing every made. The only exception is that if I never liked or saw the original movie in the franchise, then I can skip it, but if I liked the original (which is almost all of them), then I have to watch every stupid thing ever made in that franchise, no matter how bad. I secretly felt excited about this, because I liked the idea of seeing new stuff with the beloved characters from my childhood, but making it an MST3K challenge gave me "permission" to watch the crappy sequels and not feel guilty or embarrassed about it. I started with Cinderella 2: Dreams Come True. It was... okay. Not great. But y'know what? It was better than I imagined. It was a trio of short stories. Part 2 sucked, but parts 1 and 3 weren't half bad. Relatively speaking, anyway. There were redeeming qualities, and I rather enjoyed them, even though they skimped on the voice acting and animation, as is usually the case in straight-to-video cash grab sequels. Then it was on to the dreaded Cinderella 3: A Twist in Time. For decades, I had put this movie on a pedestal as an example of one of the worst, stupidest, most ridiculous premises for a movie, ever. But you know what? ...It sucked. Lol. But y'know what? It didn't suck as hard as I thought it would! I actually enjoyed it. I have some major grievances, but it also wasn't the worst, most steaming pile of sh*t ever made, either. Next came Beauty & the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas. The very existence of this movie had always offended me. As soon as I saw a picture of it back in the 90s, I was outraged simply because they were all still cursed! The beast and his staff were still a beast and living furniture! Did they just forget the ending to the original movie?! What treachery was this?! I would have no part of such treason. Quick aside--I've always had what I felt was cool headcanon about B & the B. Remember the wolf attack scene when beast saves Belle? Now, remember the snowball fight they had on what appeared to be the next day? That was the scene when the romance started to blossom, and they were singing "there's something there that wasn't there before" in their heads. Did you ever notice the continuity error that the beast's arm wounds from the wolf attack were suddenly healed? Well, my headcanon was that an entire year had passed between the wolf attack and the snowball fight. This would be a much more believable timeline for friendship and romance to develop. Well, guess what? (Minor spoiler) That's basically what they did in The Enchanted Christmas!! Well, not quite. Not a whole year. (And a full year time passage wouldn't make sense with what was going on with Maurice and Gaston in the village.) But they did reveal that the entire Enchanted Christmas movie took place in between the wolf attack and the snowball fight! It's not entirely clear exactly how much time passed, but probably about a month. Enough time for the cuts on the beast's arms to heal, So, headcanon (mostly) confirmed, and egregious continuity error averted. It wasn't a heinous sacrilege after all! How do ya like that? I could have been enjoying it all these years if only I hadn't have been so stubborn. Good grief. Anyway, the movie wasn't too bad. Not a masterpiece, but enjoyable, and not lore destroying. It was fun, and the animation quality and voice acting were basically on par with the original movie. I'm glad I watched it. Moving on to my beloved Little Mermaid--Ariel was my first crush when I was little, so I was nervous and excited--nervouscited--to see her in something new to me. Little Mermaid 2: Return to the Sea sucked. It sucked monkey f*ck. SUCKED MONKEY F*CK. It was contrived and cringey, the story was meh, the animation quality looked like a 5 year-old drew it with a crayon, and Prince Eric sounded like a South Park character. But still, I enjoyed it anyway. Next came Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning. I was... blown away, actually! It was great! I really, really loved it. I mean, it's far from perfect, and I could pick apart some story flaws, but overall it was really well done, particularly the animation. The difference between when Disney actually tires vs when they don't give a sh*t cannot be over-emphasized. In Mermaid 2, they were just like, "Pffft, it looks like sh*t. Whatever. Who cares," and then in #3, they put some effort into it, and the results were amazing. Ariel's Beginning has gorgeous animation--better than the original, actually. It's true! They did a perfect job of maintaining the original look, feel, and vibe while improving it all-around. It's new and gorgeous, while at the same time meshing perfectly with the original and feeling like a faithful return to your childhood. Kind of like The Mandalorian and the original trilogy, actually. I just can't get over how beautiful the animation was. I know I'm harping on this a lot, but it really is. There just isn't a single bad frame. I actually enjoyed it so much that it revitalized my love of the franchise and character, and made me remember why I fell in love with Ariel when I was a little kid. Okay, let's turn up the rating and get real for just a moment. Ariel and her six sisters are hot AF in this movie. Her sisters are barely in the original, but they have a ton of great screentime with her in this one, and OMFG.--what I wouldn't give to have a slumber party with all seven of those freaking goddesses in that palace bedroom of theirs. A hot, semi-incestuous, orgy of a slumber party. Even though in reality it would turn out like "The Deep South" from Futurama... Okay, I'm done. I'm enjoying these sequels, even the crappy ones, and I'm discovering some gems as well. Flawed gems, but gems nonetheless. I shouldn't be so stubborn and prejudiced. I oughtta be more open to crappy sequels before immediately deciding that they are heinous, sacrilegious abominations unto Celestia. And even if they are heinous, sacrilegious abominations, I'm still having fun watching them. Sue me. It's fun to see my beloved characters in something new, and in my old age, I'm learning that's it's much more enjoyable to let go of my principled stances on franchise lore, stop being such a sourpuss, and just watch stuff. Except for G5. I will be keeping my principled stance against that, thank you very much. And the Halo show. F*CK that sh*t. Okay, so I'm hypocritical and I cherry-pick. Whaddya want? Get outta my face.

I actually mulled this over and I believe I thought of one answer that isn't a lie, but also doesn't betray Jim's confidence, and might not imply the truth. It all depends on how this phrase is received. It might work, it might not. It goes like this: Friend: "Is Jim gay?" Me: "Pfft. Don't ask me!" When said with the right tone, the right scrunched facial expression and sideways sort of head motion, this phrase heavily implies that you are the last person on Earth who would know such a thing, yet it doesn't actually state that at all, nor does it state anything whatsoever about your knowledge--it only implies a recommendation that you are not a good person to ask. It all depends on how the friend receives this statement. If they accept it and are satisfied, I'd be off the hook. If they press and ask a follow up, then I'm still in the woods. I'm not at all saying that I have every scenario like this figured out. I mean, look, I probably wouldn't have a problem lying to protect Jim's orientation even if literal physical violence wasn't on the table. Being forced out of the closet at a time or in a manner not of one's choosing can cause them a whole host of problems depending on their family, job, and other surroundings. I consider protecting someone from this to fall within the ethical case for lying. But it's not only Jim I'm thinking about. Let's consider the friend who's inquiring about Jim. Let's call him Bob. I've been imagining Bob as kind of a prejudiced jerk by default, but let's say he's a really great guy. Let's say he's asking because he's concerned about Jim and wants to help if Jim's having a hard time. Maybe Bob and I are really close as well, and I don't want to jeopardize my friendship with him. Let's say I lie point blank to Bob about Jim's orientation, and Bob later finds out the truth and realizes I lied. How will that affect Bob's relationship with me? He might understand why I lied and respect my decision, but there may be a small amount of trust erosion as well, even if it's just subconscious. Will a small part of Bob feel that he can never truly trust any answer from me again? These are tough questions.

You can, but it takes a very rare kind of person. I have that relationship with my parents, and yes, we absolutely do know. I couldn't really be friends with anyone keeping harming secrets anyway. I just can't have those sorts of people in my life, so destroying the friendship is a moot point. The weight on my conscious would be worse. The case of someone asking me if so-and-so is gay point blank is a tough one, I'll grant you that. But here's the thing--if Jim (let's just call him Jim) is gay and doesn't want me to tell anyone, a lot would depend on exactly why he doesn't want anyone to know. Do Jim and I live in rural Alabama? Russia? Afghanistan? If so, then keeping his orientation a secret may actually be a matter of physical safety for Jim. He might be physically harassed at school or work, beaten up, or worse if the wrong people found out. Therefore, this falls well within the ethical case of lying. Remember--lying is always ethical and justified when it's to prevent violence. Now, if those things aren't a concern, and it's just me and Jim's best friend who asks me point blank, and I know that that friend isn't a bigoted jerk, then it's kind of a tougher call. I'd have to think for awhile if there's an answer that isn't a falsehood, doesn't betray Jim's confidence, and doesn't cause the other party to assume that Jim must be gay. Surely there's some combination of words that would do the trick. Well, a lot depends of what kind of people they are, and what I suspect they might do, etc. I mean, all bets are off if it's self-defensive and I think these are potentially violent people who might do something dangerous if I piss them off. If that's the case, then I will lie until my pants are on fire, get the fuck outta there and ghost them for the rest of my life. If I know for sure that they're not dangerous folk, then yeah I probably would. Hmm. That's a tough one. I think you got me. I guess it's a secret, but I'll gladly carve out and exemption for secrets that are for the express purpose of creating fun and joy for the person, and are fully intended to be revealed at an opportune moment. A surprise party or gift is something that you want the other person to know about... just not until the right moment. That's totally different from something that you never want them to know, which is the harmful kind of secret. Incidentally, I HATE surprises of any kind. (Well, I mean... like, the kind people plan for you.) I also hate giving and receiving gifts. Any potential partner for me would have to sign off on that. Heh--good luck with that, right?

Most of us have been asked this question by a friend at least once in our lives. Seems like a simple yes or no, right? Wrong. Although it's astronomically unlikely that anyone would ever ask me this question again, if anyone actually asked me, "can you keep a secret?", my response would be, "that's complicated", and I would then explain to them what I'm about to explain to you. But before we get into it, I'd like to tell you about our new merch! Yeah right. Lol. Okay, so anyway... I've made my position on lying clear somewhere or other on these forums, but let's recap it here. I believe that lying is on the continuum of violence. What I mean by this is that lying could, from a certain point of view, be considered violence is most mild form. This means that, in my opinion, the only times when lying is permissible and ethical is in situations when physical force could become necessary to defend yourself or others from harm. If you're faced with a dangerous assailant of some type, you're going to try lying your way out if possible before it comes to blows. This interpretation would obviously account for all situations in which dishonesty is necessary to protect people from harm and danger. As an example, if you were sheltering Anne Frank in your basement, and the Nazis came-a-knockin', you're obviously going to lie to them. It is my strongly held belief that truly healthy interpersonal relationships cannot exist without complete honesty. I believe that lying is completely corrosive to all interpersonal relationships, even well intended, so-called "white lies". Lying to spare someone's feelings can be tempting, and it may seem compassionate, but it only establishes that the person can never truly be trusted to give an honest opinion. Lies, even the most well-intended, create needless complications and potential hurt feelings. A commitment to complete honesty opens many doors in one's life, and grants incredible liberty and clarity. If you simply decide that you're never going to lie, it cuts drama and toxicity out of your life and reveals who your true friends are. The people who can't handle honest relationships will fade away, and your remaining relationships will be greatly strengthened. There is something indescribably powerful and wonderful in simply knowing that you can truly trust a person, and that they can trust you. Knowing that a given person will never lie to you, nor you to them, is deeply profound, and is absolutely vital for a truly connected, healthy relationship. Now, I'm not going to get into the ethics/necessity of lying in the context of business, governance, or foreign policy. Ideally, we should live in a world of corporate and government transparency, and complete global cooperation. Instead, we live in a competitive world. I don't see how complete governmental and international honesty would work in the world that we have. It's unfortunate, but it's just the way it is right now. Hopefully, if we survive, maybe we'll have a better world in future centuries. I'm speaking mostly about interpersonal relationships here. When hearing this view on lying, most people will immediately recoil and try to defend the position that all people lie, that white lies are necessary, and that some amount of lies are even necessary in a marriage, and that if you don't believe that, then you're just a naive fool who's never been married and doesn't understand how the game is played. I'm not going to spend a great deal of time addressing this, other than to say that viewpoint is demonstrably, categorically bullsh*t. Full stop. If you don't believe that a healthy marriage means and honest one, then you're the one that understand how relationships really work. People also claim that honesty is difficult, and that lying is easier. That's also completely false, and a greatly confused viewpoint. Honesty is much easier. Really. I can honestly say that there's nothing difficult about honesty. You just say what you think and feel, and what you believe to be true. You don't have to invent, concoct, or organize stories, think up excuses, or keep track of your lies. You just speak your mind. What could be simpler? A belief that honesty is more difficult simply boils down to fear--fear of what others will think if they know the true you. But wouldn't you rather weed out the people who don't actually like the real you and find out who your friends really are, rather than surround yourself with phony friends who only like you based on lies? I certainly would. Honesty is remarkably easier, simpler, and more refreshing than most people believe. But does a commitment to complete honesty mean that one has to broadcast every single thought in their mind and open every second of their life for all to see? Of course not. Good Celestia no. And this is where I finally explain my answer to the opening question. I don't believe that secrets are ever ethical. This is because there is something vastly different between secrecy, and privacy. Privacy is the honest and ethical withholding of information that no one else's business. There is nothing dishonest about privacy. Privacy is simply declining to provide information because it's your own personal business, and not something that others need to know. We are all entitled to privacy. It's our prerogative as human beings to decide how much of our lives to share and with whom. One need not ever tell a falsehood in order to maintain privacy. On the other hand, secrecy, I would argue, is the unethical, deceptive withholding of information. There is something fundamentally suspect about secrecy. To me, secrecy inherently implies deception. The key difference between privacy and secrecy is that on top of withholding information, you have the added layer of denying that there is any information being withheld. It seems to me that the only reason to keep a secret would be for some kind of nefarious purpose, or because you don't want others to know who really are, or what you've done, and if that's the case, then you should reexamine your life. If you're withholding information in an interpersonal relationship, and denying that there's any information being withheld, then that is by definition deceptive, unethical, and harmful, and that's what secrecy is. I believe that there are many cases in which people confuse or conflate secrecy and privacy. There many be cases in which a friend asked you to keep a secret, but it was actually just a case of privacy, which is harmless. If a friend asked me if I could keep a secret, I would have to explain to them the difference between secrecy and privacy, and then ask them which it is that we're talking about. If if's privacy, then I can take it to my grave if that's your wish. Here's an example: let's say I have a gay friend who's still in the closet, and they come out to me, but they ask me not to tell anyone else because they're not ready nor comfortable. No problem. That's no one else's business anyway. It's private. I have no problem keeping my mouth shut about that for as long as I live, should they never decide to come out to anyone else. That wouldn't be a burden to me at all. However, if the information they want to divulge is something intetionally deceptive that could hurt someone, then that's where we have a problem. You wanna tell me that you're cheating on your partner, or you've gambled away your life savings and are hiding it from your partner? No, I can't and won't keep that secret. That would weight on my conscience. It is often said that everybody has secrets. Not true. I don't. I have private matters, but not secrets. I cannot engage in secrecy. I think The Office put it best: "secrets, secrets, are no fun; secrets, secrets, hurt someone." Wait, wait--I have one more. Privacy is good, secrets are bad... unless they're Victoria's! Okay, I'm done.

One of my earliest entries was a rant about reboots that have the same titles as the original, which causes confusion. This grinds my gears so much that it demands a revisit. I hate when they give reboots or continuations in a franchise the exact same title as the original. It grinds my gears so much that it burns my bacon, sizzles my sausage, steams my hams, bakes my beans, fries my flapjacks, boils my blood, and censors my clop. What the f*cking hell, dude? Why can't they give things a unique or numbered title?! Everyone calls the God of War game on PS4 GOW 4. Makes sense. But that's not really the title. Nope. The title is actually just God of War. And a new Scream movie came out this year. Guess what it's called? Yup. Scream. What else? Now, once again, we have to call it New Scream, or Scream 2022 in order to know what they hell we're talking about. WHY?! Why the hell do they do this?! Why does anyone think this is a good idea?! Why can't they just call it Scream 6 or 7 or whatever the hell number movie it is?!! Or some other unique subtitle! Anything to differentiate it! I HATE THIS SOOO MUUUUUCH!!!! Oh, and how about this little doozy: just the other day I saw a little blurb about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II, saying it was coming out soon and available for pre-order. I thought I was going f*cking insane. Call me crazy, but I could have sworn that COD:MWF2 came out quite awhile ago. Right? RIIIIGHT?! Remember this?! Yeah. YEAH. That's right. That's F*CKING RIGHT. I know you do. But what happens when you search for MWF2 now? Half the results are now... THIS. ... What. THE. ASS. I mean, seriously, why? Just WHY?! Can somebody please explain it to me? I'm not being facetious or rhetorical. I mean, literally, can somebody please tell me why they just punk their own names from the past like this? I would give f*cking anything to be able to sit down with a bigwig CEO from a huge game dev or movie studio for just one f*cking minute and ask them to explain why in the name of Zeus's butthole they recycle names of previous titles. My sweet f*cking Celestia, I just can't even describe how much this enrages me. You have to stick a year after every single title now in order to find what you want or to have anybody know what you're talking about. This trend is ludicrous, ass-f*cking... *huge inhale* BULLSH***********T!!!! And that, my little ponies, is what grinds my gears.

Cayenne all the way. Tragically, it's almost impossible to find fresh cayennes. All you can find is cayenne pepper, as in the dry powder, but not peppers, as in the whole fruit. I've never found any in a store. You basically have to grow them yourself. Failing that, serranos work in a pinch.

I enjoy reviewing animated shows in this blog, like LPS and Miraculous Ladybug. I'd like to talk about anime as well, but it's too overwhelming to try to write a separate blog about every show I watch. It's too many, and let's be honest--who the hell wants to read all that anyway? That's why I've decided to lump it all together into one entry where I list my anime recommendations with just a couple of spoiler-free tidbits about each one. This blog will be on-going. I will periodically update it with more recs as I watch more shows. But first a short introduction. My history with anime is interesting. I've always loved it, but I wasn't really able to actualize my love of it until pretty recently. See, in jr high and high school, I loved the idea of anime, but I never really found any that I liked. Some of my friends were massive anime fans. One was a total weeb. They watched anime constantly and I kinda got forced into it when we were all together, but I hated it because all the animes they wanted to watch were either nothing but over-the-top, action-packed action with zero character development, or ridiculous, off-the-wall, zany, asinine slapstick, both of which I don't care for in anime. It was really difficult to find anything I liked because there wasn't any streaming at the time, and physical media of that variety was also hard to come by. No Amazon or other easy online places to order anything you want. No Crunchyroll, either. So, it was mostly what was on tv, which mostly sucked. It put me off for a long time, but I always wanted to get back into anime, or rather get into it properly for the first time. Netflix has tons of anime, and after years of trying and failing to make the time, I finally started getting into it and I'm having a blast. I'm finally finding the type of stuff I always wanted--real, emotional character development with poignant, useful messages and morals. Before I get into my recs, I want to define a term I frequently use--anime distortion, or sometimes just distortion for short. What I don't care for is when the animation and art style changes wildly depending on the character's emotions, and they draw them in silly, wacky ways. Like, so, for example, a character gets startled, and their face suddenly loses all detail, their eyes become black dashes, their mouth gapes open and takes up half their head, and giant, disembodied sweat drops fall down beside their head. Or maybe they get excited and their eyes and mouth turn into tiny triangles or something, or they turn into a little starfish person with tiny points for arms and legs and they fly around the room with flashing colored backgrounds or something, or they turn bright red and scream and their head turns ginormous or something. It's a little hard to describe, but if you watch anime, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. In fact, you're probably doing the Drache meme grin and point right now. So, yeah, not a big fan of that stuff. I prefer the characters to stay realistic and maintain plausible shapes to their faces and bodies despite the emotions. I refer to this as having a law of conservation of shape. No starfish people, please. But I'll tolerate a little of the anime distortion if the story and characters are good enough. So, my recs. Here we go. The Shape of Voice (film) - called "A Silent Voice" on Netflix for some stupid reason. Probably the best anime thing of any kind that I've ever seen, and one of the best movies I've ever seen, period. Takes itself very seriously--zero anime distortion. March Comes in Like a Lion (series) - A little more of the distortion than I'd prefer, but it's tolerable, and the story and characters are incredible. Some of the most poignant, intense, gut-wrenching, and hard hitting themes I've ever seen in a cartoon. Masterpiece. Every child on Earth should see this when they're old enough to understand it, but before it's too late to make a difference. You'll understand what I mean. Welcome to the NHK (series) - A smidgen of anime distortion, but not bad. Worth it for the wild roller coaster ride of emotions. My personal favorite anime of all time. Cowboy Bebop (series + movie) - I'm sure you're already familiar with it. Who isn't? No distortions. Sci-fi masterpiece. A Lull in the Sea (series) - Now, this one is really interesting. It's part real life, and a bit whimsical fantasy, and a most unexpected gem. I was on the fence for the first few episodes, and it's a bit contrived and sappy at times, and a little soapy as well, but I ended up being blown away by how deeply emotional it was. It's not gonna be for everyone, though. If you're put off by a little melodrama and teen romance, then you probably won't like it. One of the most beautiful art styles I've seen in a cartoon. Zero distortions. Children of the Sea (film) - one of the weirdest movies I've ever seen in my life... but not in a bad way. Hard to follow the plot, but it's probably the most gorgeous art style and animation I've ever seen. The detail packed into every frame is just mindblowing. It's just simply one of the most joyous sights to behold that I've ever seen in animation. Zero distortion. As far from stereotypical distortion anime as you can get. Toradora! (series) - A high school romance, but not as contrived or melodramatic as Lull. Great, interesting characters. A touch of distortion, but not bad at all. Violet Evergarden (series + 2 movies) - one of the best things I've ever seen in my life, of any kind. It's incredible. I can't recommend it enough. I haven't one bad thing to say about it. It even has one of the best soundtracks I've ever heard in anything. I won't say anything about it because it's better to just let it all be a surprise, but I will say that I shed more tears during this than anything I've ever seen. Zero distortion. Vinland Saga (series) - An intense, hardcore, extremely brutal show set in the time of the vikings. No distortions. Ouran High School Host Club (series) - this was a most unexpected and pleasant surprise for me. It's a lighthearted and funny show sprinkled with sweet, touching moments. It's extremely heavy on the anime distortions, however, but what surprised me is that I actually didn't mind! I kinda grew to like it, in fact! It's the first and only case of anime distortion that I've liked. Maybe I'm not as allergic to it as I thought. Maybe I just didn't like the distortion I saw back in high school because the characters sucked. Maybe I actually like some distortion once in awhile if the characters are good and funny. The Host Club characters are funny and charming, but dynamic and deep enough that I actually cared about them. Omg--I loved the distortions of the club leader, Tamaki. He was hysterical.

Well... that might explain a few things...

Hey. Y'know what really grinds my gears? Prog. It just annoys me because I don't know what in the flying f*ck the word means. I hear it constantly I mean, I always assumed it was short for either progress or progressive, but that can't be the end of it. I hear it in so many ways and in so many contexts that nothing makes any sense. I mean, I literally don't know what part of speech it even is. Is it a noun? A verb? Adjective? Preposition?! What? I don't know!! People use it like it's a verb and an adjective, but then I hear people refer to it like it's a unique place, like a f*cking proper noun, like some, idk, some f*cking academy that you can visit or something. It's all over the place. Like, I'm not even kidding, it will be like this: "I went to prog and studied at Prog for two years and the students there were really prog, and we learned a lot of life lessons that were really important to prog, and then we went to a fashion show in prog, and the outfits were totally prog, and then the judges progged all of the designers who were too prog or not prog enough." I'm dead f*cking serious. That's not hyperbole. I'm not being facetious. I mean, people obviously don't use it that many times in a sentence, but I'm saying that I've heard all of those types of uses. WHAT THE F*CK?!! WHAT DOES IT MEAN??!! I looked it up on regular dictionary and urban dictionary. It didn't help. It did not help. I guess the prog is just too prog for me to prog.

OMG. I LIKE THAT. I LIKE THAT. LOL!!! It's so true!!

I already did an episode on UI changes, but I hate this so much that it requires a second part. The hate cannot be contained. You know what really grinds my gears? Unnecessary software UI changes. Now, I realize that software needs to be updated and maintained. I get that, and that's fine. I also realize that sometimes UI changes are necessary and good. I get that, and that's fine. I still hate dealing with the changes, but I do in fact deal with it. But what I can't f*cking stand is when devs just randomly shuffle around UI elements for no f*cking reason whatsoever. And sometimes it really is for no Celestia-dammed reason, too. So often you update something like a web browser, and this options menu that used to be on the left side of the screen is now over there on the right side of the screen, and this feature that used to under "tools" is now under "edit" or something. It's not better, it's not more convenient--it's just different. WHY?! Why shuffle things around like that? Sometimes they put out updates for no other purpose but to take the features that you know where they are and just move them somewhere the f*ck else so you have to relearn it. WHY?! WHY??!! Now, I'll admit that sometimes UIs are actually bad and need changes, and sometimes the changes are good and warranted, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about some basic, simple thing like a polished web browser that's perfect, convenient, and works fine, and they just shuffle it around for no reason. F*ck that sh*t. I've heard smart people explain the psychology of these sorts of changes. They explained that software developers or other such companies intentionally make these sorts of changes because it's believed that stagnation will drive people away. The psychology ostensibly goes like this: change too much too fast, and you'll scare users/customers away and they'll move on to something else, but never change anything and users/customers will grow bored and move on to something else. I'm calling mostly bullsh*t on the latter part. Adding new features is usually fine, but f*cking around with what works is not. People don't grow bored of software that works and does exactly what they want it to just because the UI stays the same. If you're using some sort of productivity software, like a photo editor, you don't get bored and dump it just because the buttons stayed put. That's just not a thing that happens. That's not why people switch software. They switch because the other program does something they need which they're current program can't. They don't switch because they're bored of knowing exactly where the buttons and menus are, and they just feeling like shuffling things up so their brain has to work harder to relearn where all the basic functions are. Consider this example: imagine that Microsoft Windows today looked exactly as it did in '95. Just the UI, not the backend. It's still Windows XP, 7, 10, 11, whatever. But the UI looks like '95 and never changed, apart from just adding more features and upscaling the resolution. Do you think that all Windows users would have grown bored and switched to Mac or Linux just to shuffle up the appearance? I seriously doubt it. That's not why people switch OSes. As someone who switched from Windows to Linux a couple years ago, I can tell you exactly why people switch to Linux: it's because they want a free, open-source alternative, and they want complete ownership, freedom, and control over their OS. It's not out of UI boredom. And if Linux users decide to buy a new Windows OS, it's because they want native compatibility for all new games. Period. It's not because they want a different UI. Now, I'm not saying that Windows '95 is the best UI and they should have stuck with it forever (I'd actually say that was 7, personally), but what I am saying is that people don't get bored of software because your button and menu layout doesn't change. What matters is that the software works well and does everything you want it to do. I'd be willing to bet that not a single person in the history of the world ever dumped a piece of software that was convenient, great performing, and did everything they wanted it to do for the sole reason that they got bored of an unchanging UI. And just to be clear, you can improve the functionality of UI without changing where everything is. Big difference. What I'm complaining about is specifically shuffling around the layout of everything so that you have to relearn where everything is. I don't believe that psychology thing, but I think that many companies do, and they often put out updates that literally do nothing but give already perfect UIs a "facelift", which does nothing but make your life a lot more inconvenient. Anytime a developer pulls this sh*t, I want to sneak into their house while they're asleep and completely rearrange everything. Move every piece of furniture, move every single item in every single drawer and cupboard, put the dishes in the bathroom, put the toothpaste and shampoo in the refrigerator, put their underwear drawer in the garage, etc. See how the f*ck they like it. Celestia f*cking dammit I hate unnecessary UI changes. And that's all I have to say about that.