Sticky: An introduction to what Utilitarianism isn’t
Dec. 8th, 2018 07:10 pmAny blog should start off by introducing its subject, but in theory, Utilitarianism is quite simple. It’s a theory of ethics under which you should take whatever actions will lead to the greatest happiness for everyone involved. There are no other rules or restrictions–just make as many people as happy as you can make them.
So to make this more interesting, let’s go over some of the things Utilitarians DON’T have.( Read more... )
(no subject)
Feb. 26th, 2026 12:52 amI read a fantasy novel where the main character breaks a giant metal chain and nearly decapitates their love interest with it. No one is actually harmed. This is a typical fantasy novel mistake.
I watched a military movie where the main character shoots some civilians he thinks are enemies. This is a typical military movie mistake. I played a horror video game where the protagonist needs to cross a street, but no matter how long he waits, the cars never stop zooming past. He throws a dummy into the road so cars will stop. A driver swerves to avoid it, crashes into a lamppost, and dies.
Horror can have a main character who isn't even thinking about violence fuck up in a way that ends up with a body count.
(Okay, horror and also Tales of the Abyss. And tragedies like Romeo and Juliet, but tragedy as a genre is pretty much dead now.)
(no subject)
Feb. 25th, 2026 11:03 amIt amazes me that we've developed a way to assign new meanings to any word, and we use it solely to reference sex acts and genitals. Take the people who referred to the movie Pocahontas as "Poke Her Hontas." "Hontas" isn't even a word, and yet it's taken as a given that this sort of sentence is sexual. Plural* confirms that it means "poke her breasts." And you can do this with almost any noun or nonsense word!
Most of the time when I read a post by an asexual person who doesn't understand what was sexual about some statement, the statement in question is along the lines of "poke her hontas."
*It's unusual to see this sort of redefinition for testicles unless it's set up in advance.
Thinking about an Owl House fanfic
Feb. 25th, 2026 12:28 amI'm playing Soulestination
Feb. 18th, 2026 07:15 amIt's clever, it's stupid, and it's obnoxious to interact with. The signature traits of postmodernism.
(no subject)
Feb. 17th, 2026 01:24 am(no subject)
Feb. 13th, 2026 05:09 pmThoughts on The Cuniculus of Paradise
Feb. 10th, 2026 06:38 pm(no subject)
Feb. 10th, 2026 11:14 amI am completely unequipped to understand Frank Bidart. I get the impression this poet’s a genius, but I can’t make the mental connections necessary to follow what he’s saying.
Below, a horrific poem about child sexual abuse and murder that clearly has something to say about it:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/50170/herbert-white(no subject)
Feb. 6th, 2026 06:16 pmI'm not sure how many levels it goes through, and I'm not sure where the top is as far as fiction. Maybe one of the Guinea Pig movies? I think any fiction is a 1 compared to some nonfiction, though.
What really interests me is trying to find the lowest 10. What's the least fucked-up thing that makes some people go "This is 10 out of 10 fucked up; it can't get any more fucked up than this?" E.g. some people have a very strong reaction to any mention of cannibalism.
(no subject)
Feb. 3rd, 2026 11:42 pmThere seems to be this gigantic divide in HDG fandom between people who want to stick to the “setting ethos” and people who don’t give a shit. E.g. I’ve seen noncon identity death that doesn’t seem like it’s challenging the setting or criticizing the setting. It seems like “this is what I want to write in any setting, so it’s what I write in HDG.”
TBF, what “shared universe” doesn’t contradict the first author’s “setting ethos”? Even central control like Star Wars isn’t a guarantee.