Green Eyes

     I do not get it. So, allegedly the differing eye colours are due to the different melanin content. You know melanin, right? It's that brown stuff that, in large quantities, makes brown so dark you call it black. Black eyes are like that, so much melanin they have no choice but the be black.

     So, in that case, eyes with less and less melanin should have brown, light brown, beige, and pale beige colours...... right? Well, somehow "less brown stuff" means green and blue. CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS? Cause my low IQ brain cannot get it. Apparently it has to do with light refractions or something like that...?

     /shortpost

The SMALL Spyro problem...

     NO, this is not well timed clickbait.

     Today, gents and ladiesmen, I will bring your attention to the size of Spyro the Dragon. Yes, his size. Spyro, believe it or not, is small.

     Now, the reason for Spyro's small size does not matter much. Mayhaps he was shrunk to appeal to tiny humans playing the game at the ripe age of 6. Perpossibly playing as a smaller character works better for a platformer. It even allows for the premise and story of the first game. There are several reasons to make Spyro small, be they logical, stylistic, and market based.

     Then what's the "PROBLEM", exactly?? Why am I complaining, having just explained why small Spyro makes sense?

     Well, the thing is, Spyro is not just small. He is small because he is YOUNG. And that creates a problem no one thinks about.

     The problem arises when you keep making sequels. Unless you're rebooting the franchise all the time (cough, cough), with every sequel some time passes. Spyro MUST age, however slow. What I am getting at, is that at some point Spyro has GOT to grow. Even if he is unusually small for a dragon, he HAS to grow, at least a little.

     And despite that being common sense, it is a problem. If Spyro The Dragon™ ever grows up and get bigger*, that will destroy the iconic brand's recognition. Iconic look is the only way to be remembered by an audience who will return to buy your sequels. What if Crash Bandicoot stops being orange and loses his mohawk? What if Mario shaves off his mustache? What if Harry Potter loses his forehead scar? What if Slash takes off his hat and sunglasses?? WHAT IF YOUR FAMOUS CHARACTERS STOPS LOOKING AS YOU REMEMBER THEM?

     No no no, we cannot have that!~!

     And that, is why you cannot make Spyro The Dragon™ bigger. If you do that, the numerous retards in the audience will get all confused, and not buy the next game. "What the fuck?! Who is that?? I don't recognize that large purple reptile! Where's muh Smol Spyro™???" Or, perhaps, if you are slightly less a retard, "The fuck?! Why is Spyro BIG now? Why did they change him? I don't like when things get different, I don't want this! Take it away, I want my Smol Spyro™ back!!!" And a sequel with a grown up Spyro does not sell. And that is sad.

     And so, our little purple dragon will continue to roam the earth (gliding occasionally to reach some gems), cursed to forever remain small, to never grow up. He will never grow old enough to do it with Elora without the risk of jail time. That is why Spyro's iconic small size is a SMALL problem.




* LOS is a reboot and a different canon. Doesn't count.

Bipolar Geniuses? !

     Hi, I'm a guy on the INTERNET! Have you ever seen a man (or woman or bear) be exceedingly smart and insightful on some topic on one day, and then blabber something extremely stupid on another? Say something that really makes you think on Tuesday, and then declare the Matrix sequels smart and deep on Wednesday?

     Yes, I am sure you have met at least one person like this: a philosopher at night, a retard at day. Such people are more common than fans of obscure british animated shows. And yet, to call them "regular flawed individuals" would be incorrect, since such regular people are usually not extraordinary in any way, with nothing great about them. Such "average" homosapienses are mediocre at everything, and make up roughly 80% of the world's population.

     NO, these are special people, distinguished for being either extremely insightful and wise, or extremely stupid and mentally lazy. I have been thinking... what would I call such people? I don't believe anyone ever devised a word for such strange folk.

     Until today.

     4 today, I have finally solved this problem that no one ever cared about! From this point, these "sometimes brilliant, sometimes daft" people will be called Bipolar Geniuses™. ©Me, 2017.

     No one steal!








     More post are coming, as this blog continues to live, despite according to all known mainstream science it should be dead.

The Vicious Cycle of Cute (a rant on art websites)

     On a popular art sharing site, a drawing of a CUTE vaguely kitten-like thing had been uploaded.

     A user with a CUTE avatar icon writes "CUTE!" in the comment section.

     on another day . . . . .
     
     A CUTE vaguely kitten-like thing with BIG CUTE EYES is posted.
     A user with a CUTE avatar comments: "CUTE! Draw moar liek this!"

     on a different day . . . . .

     A CUTE vaguely kitten-like thing with BIG CUTE EYES is posted.
     A user with a CUTE avatar comments: "CUTE! Draw moar liek this!"
          
     a day after . . . . .

     A CUTE vaguely kitten-like thing with BIG CUTE EYES is posted.
     A user with a CUTE avatar comments: "CUTE! Draw moar liek this!"

     on the next day . . . . .

     A CUTE vaguely kitten-like thing with BIG CUTE EYES is posted.
     A user with a CUTE avatar comments: "CUTE! Draw moar liek this!"

     on another day . . . . .

     A CUTE vaguely kitten-like thing with BIG CUTE EYES is posted.
     A user with a CUTE avatar comments: "CUTE! Draw moar liek this!"

     the next day . . . . .



     . . . . . . . . . . .

   

     . . . . . YOU wake up. You do the usual routines, eventually get to your piece of paper/drawing tablet. You want to draw something. You want to make a drawing. You want to create a picture for others to see.

     But what will you draw? . . . . . .

X-perience

     Hey you!

     Yes, you! Have you ever wanted to sound smart? But never bothered actually becoming smart? Want to impress people with your smart talk? Wanna talk smart, don't you?

     Well, do I have a solution for you!

     The secret to sounding smart is actually very simple! Just say "experience" a lot. You don't have to know what it means, just use it in dialogue, often. See example:

     "In my experience, never before have I experienced such an experience. My last summer's experience was quite an experience, and I wish every one of you could experience my experience!"


     Now, what are you waiting for? Go, and experience the adoration of thousands of easily impressionable sheep!

Ruminating on the pack mentality (and wulfs)

     (this rant will piss off every dog lover)    


     So, it has come to this.

     I am finally writing another post, 3 months after.



     So, pack mentality.....

     One day, when thinking about dogs, and how they are "man's best friend", I asked myself the inevitable question: "Or are they?"

     Dogs seem to love you unconditionally, and are willing to do any work for you for a meager price of food and shelter. How noble of them............... or is it?

     Well, ask yourself a question: why do wolves form packs? Is it because they love each other so damn much? Is it because they are oh so nice? Or is it because of much more pragmatic, and, frankly, pathetic reasons?

     I will be frank, and say what I think right here. Wolves are weak cowards. They are weak because they cannot support themselves. They are cowards because they are afraid for their own skin. "Safety in numbers" is a recurring phrase for a reason. Wulfs stick together because it is safe. And because it makes it easier to hunt. Understandable, but not respectable.

     And there is nothing shameful for being weak on your own. However, it is shameful when those are your only reasons for being social. Yeah, I am part of the group, because on my own I cannot accomplish jack shit!

     It would be understandable, and even admirable if wolves formed packs after realizing their individual weakness as hunters and general survivors. It is noble to not be afraid to admit you're weak, and it is a sign of intelligence to decide to stick together with someone else for strength in numbers. But wolves just had to fuck everything up, by throwing in a bonus – the Alpha System.

     For you see, it's not all egalitarianism all the time inside a wulf pack. There is the 1%, those slightly below, and those considered the dredges of society. And everyone in the 99% are constantly scheming to overthrow (see: kill) the alphas. There are constant in-fighting, and frequent changing of the guard. Wulfs pretend to be loyal out of cowardice, but when presented with a chance, dig their teeth in. PRETTY MUCH LIKE PEOPLE, ACTUALLY.

     The pack is comprised of aggressive assholes who treat everyone else like shit and demand the best and the most resources, and submissive cowards below them who are only pretending to agree with the system, to hopefully one day kill the leader and become the 1%. Assholes, and cowards.

     And the dogs are so nice to us because, through their limited intelligence, they believe they are still the same wulfs of 10,000 years ago. Dogs still see the world through the old pack-o-vision, and see their masters as the alphas. Dogs pretend to like us because they are anti-egalitarian by nature. In dogs' world, there are only kings and servants, and you are one or the other. And sadly for them, we, the humans, are way smarter than them, and it is pretty much impossible for them to overthrow us, their two-legged masters. So they are stuck in the endless cycle of servitude.

     Dogs don't love us, they just think we are the alpha wulfs. And that is the sole point of this rant.







     And yes, some dogs seem to be capable of genuine sympathy for their owners. I met some like that.

     They are in the minority, sadly.

I blame the INTERNET (and myself).

     You probably heard a lot of complains, a lot of moans about things getting worse, about everything being shit. You heard complaints about #KidsTheseDays who cannot spend 5 waking minutes without checking their status on a touch phone, and being willfully ignorant about actual knowledge.

     You might even have heard about the entire Western Civilization going to Hell in a regular basket.

     Assuming any of that is true, and things in the western world really ARE getting worse, there are only 3 options.

     –Blame yourself.

     –Blame someone/something else.

     –Do Both.

     I personally do believe that things in the western world have been going downhill, and that people are becoming increasingly apathetic and willfully ignorant. People are refusing to think for themselves, refusing to question things, refusing to DO things; refusing to live as brave independent people, and not cowardly sheep following either RELIGION of SCIENCE to wherever those take us (spoiler: it's destruction).

     I believe that the West have been getting more and more sick for some time. And of the three options listed above, I pick the 3rd, the last one.

     Blaming yourself is always a good option, and is an important step in growing up, and becoming MATURE ADULTS™.

     HOWEVER, blaming yourself BY ITSELF, only leads to self hatred (and suicide). You can only blame yourself for making the wrong action (or not taking actions at all), believing the wrong idea, or allowing someone to keep you down.

     So, for the shit that has been happening to the West, and myself personally, I blame myself for allowing THE INTERNETS to turn me into a slob, eager for instant gratification.

     We have become chronically afraid of missing something important, for missing some hot new content, for falling out of the loop. We are afraid of not being in the know. And that is why we are always online, always checking IF WE MISSED ANYTHING (spoiler: we almost never do).

     We have become spoiled by the promise of instant access and no waiting. We curse our INTERNET connection when downloading our movies and games illegally (because why work for money if that is hard and takes time?) Don't work! Don't wait! Do not do hard things! Do not discipline yourself! DO NOTHING BUT CONSUME EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE RIGHT NOW!



     Looking at myself, I make myself sick sometimes.

     And I am not the only one.

     LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR.







     P.S. Satyrday updates will return very soon. I promise to not take very long now.

Why Santa Claus makes no sense (and needs to go away).

     We lie to our children like total scumbags. And when they grow up, they take after us, because we are fucking stupid, and totally incapable of learning from others' past mistakes, or growing to become better than our parents. We are stuck in an endless cycle of mediocrity, unable to improve due to our inherent stupidity.

     But this is not what this cheery Christmas article is going to be about.

     No, it is about why Santa Claus, as a concept, makes no fucking sense.

     Who is Santa Claus? Well, he is an old seemingly immortal man who lives on the North Pole, and gives presents to worthy children on Christmas Day. He delivers all Christmas presents by himself.

     What is Christmas all about? Well, if you don't get über religious about it, Christmas is about sharing, and giving. Giving presents (of various kinds). On Christmas you give presents.

     SEE THE PROBLEM YET??

     Well, in case you don't, allow me to put it this way: Santa Claus destroys the Spirit of Christmas by existing. If Santa was real (WHAT DO YOU MEAN HE ISN'T REAL YOU JERK), that would mean all presents on Christmas would be from him. That, in turn, eliminates any reason for sharing and giving. Why give presents yourself, when some fat man from the north pole can just do it for you, and do it better? Cause Santa knows what everyone wants, and delivers stuff on time, never late. You cannot beat Santa. He is friggin perfect.

     And you can never beat friggin perfect, let me tell you that.

     So, in order for gift giving and the whole kindness thing to take place, Santa Claus needs to go away. Either you are nice, or somebody is being nice for you. In my OPINION, there is no middle ground here. It is either Santa Claus, or you. And I would rather be nice and give gifts by myself, rather than rely on someone else to do those important things for me.



     MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS! :D

The appeal of used media.

     First, yes, not everyone downloads everything on their iPads®™and consumes entertainment that way. Some people actually buy real books, and real CDs. And Blu-Rays.

     Second, you are probably reading this on your iPad. OH THE IRONY.

     Third, let's begin.

     Today, children, I would like to dedicate a few medium sized paragraphs to the appeal of used things. The things that are no longer new. The things that were owned by somebody else for years. Old used fabric will be worn out and faded and full of holes. When we are dealing with electronics, we have to be extra cautious: anything with moving parts wears out fairly quickly with constant use, and anything with lights, lasers, and built-in batteries wears out even faster. An Apple laptop that was used every day for a year might have its super-duper-long-lasting-battery already almost dead. Speaking of non-electronic electric-based technology, a light bulb under constant use dies within a few months.

     However, when we are dealing with used media, things start looking less grim. Having no moving parts, media ages really well. A book will live a life longer than of a human, providing it is not read daily, and is kept somewhere where it does not suck to be a book. A comic, being a book, is the same fucking thing. An old used vinyl record, providing it wasn't played often, will sound good, and plastic degrades extremely slowly. An old used optical disk (hint - that's what a CD or a Blu-Ray is) will live a long and prosperous life providing it was pressed well in the first place, didn't receive too many scratches, and was kept somewhere not too hot not too cold not too moist.

     Used media has more appeal though, in addition to often being cheaper. It is a testament to its strength. if a book or a disk managed to live for 20 years or longer, without losing its ability to function, it speaks to the high level of manufacturing. With books, if you have something 40 years or older, still intact, and still readable, it was really made well, and the book is really high quality. A piece of old media still functioning after all the years is like a skilled warrior who went through many battles and survived; must be a damn good warrior then!

     Magnetic tapes are easy to wear out with constant use, and even without use are easy to damage, and damage permanently. These little demon spawns are an exception to what I am trying to get across here. . .

     . . . and what I am trying to get across here is:

     DO NOT BE AFRAID TO BUY USED. 

     . . . if it's media.

     But be careful with cassettes. They are tricky.



     That's it, really.









     . . . except there will be a sequel.

One more reason to not to respond to attention whores.

     We've all been there, haven't we? You read an article, and you read it, and you finish reading it, and you go all the way to the bottom............. to the comment section. You look through them, to see what other ppl are thinking....

     ....... and then you see it. Some smartass who thinks he is changing the world with his hot OPINIONS. His comment is so stupid, so angering, so factually incorrect, SO MAKING YOU CLICK THAT REPLY BU-......... but no, you must stop! Do not reply!

     "But why? I must show that idiot that his position is wrong and he is factually incorrect!"

     Well, that is not the smartest course de actionsé. Arguing with an idiot who thinks he is fighting a war in the comment section, will only fuel the fire; it will only strengthen the idiot's believe that there is a war. Why wouldn't there be? But of course there is! You are right there, fighting a war with him, with your comment!

     Smartasses in comment sections think they are fighting a war against something BIG and evil. By replying, you reaffirm their belief that there is a force to be fought (your comment). By not replying, by ignoring the fuck out of them, there is a slight chance they might consider the possibility that they are fighting against nothing, that there is nothing to win, nobody to fight.

     By ignoring angry idiots you just might help them become slightly less idiotic.

SIlent Hill for Pretentious Smartasses Part 2 (long awaited by nobody).

     Alrighty then, let's jump into it. If you haven't read part 1, go read that first before proceeding.

     Are the events of Silent Hill 1-3 real? Those who prefer to think that they aren't, are in for quite an offense. I'll start with the supporting characters.

     So, you think Silent Hill is all in youre heade? Okay. Explain the supporting characters then. How can the other people you interact with exist, if it's all in your mind? And you might be saying something like "oh, those people are just representations of [ blah blah Freudian Psychology 101 ]".

     Well, if all those people in Silent Hill 2 are somehow in the head of the protagonist, that raises certain questions:

     –How? How can people live inside your head? How can you have that? I personally never heard of anyone who has people living in his/her head. Yes, we all heard of insane people who have people living in their heads (or so they claim). Well, I never did, and so refuse to believe.

     –If SH supporting characters are really representations of protagonist's guilt, then what about those characters who do not represent fucking anything?? In the favorite game of the "in your head" proponents, Silent Hill 2, Laura does not represent shit. That contradicts the "all in your head" directly.

     –Supporting characters' backstory. In the much beloved SH2, Angela was raped. Eddie was abused for being fat. What does that have to do with James Fucking Sunderland?? Was James fat? Was James raepd? NO. What do those backstories represent symbolically (there is that word again) in relation to James? FUCKING NOTHING. How can these people be imaginary, if their backstories have nothing to do with James? The answer is, they cannot.

     –If everyone is imaginary, how can your imaginary characters know information you never learned? Eddie told James Laura's name. Angela told James about the monsters, before James ever saw one. Maria feels like she was meant to protect Laura, which reflects the feelings Mary had for the girl; James never knew they were friends. All those supporting characters in SH2, at least at one point, knew something James did not. That would indicate that they cannot be imaginary, and must be real people.


     Okay, I hope these are some convincing arguments to convince you that the events of Silent Hill 2 did not happen in James's head. If you are still not convinced, then wait for part 3!

In Defense of Sequels.

     if you go on the INTERNET, and look around, you will quickly find a sizable amount of humans united around the common goal of hating sequels. According to them, sequels are bad and need to stop.

     Well, why they say that is not hard to figure out. Sequels are produced only to make money, after the original did. Or at least that is the common belief. That is hard to argue with. The biggest makers of movies (hello, Hollywood) are run by Big Bad Corporations, which in turn are not run by artists, but by corporate people who do not care for quality storytelling. They will finance utter shit, as long as it makes money. From the corporate leaders' point of view, as long as there is profit, the movie can be fucking anything. Unfortunately for them, the actual movie audience doesn't give a damn about that point of view.

     And the general public knows that. People know that sequels are only made to sell more tickets.

     BUT WAIT! That is not true!

     ... at least not entirely.



     Allow me to introduce you to the glorious World of Exceptions. World of Exceptions is visited 1643 times less than Disney World, and therefore is seldom known. But it does exist! And it contains some of the rarest pieces of knowledge, the stuff of legends, the stuff self-proclaimed wise men (and women) want to get. And one of the things you'll find in the World of Exceptions is that sometimes, SOMETIMES, movies are made because the filmmakers actually legitimately for realz want to.

     But why would a film maker want to make a sequel? Why not leave every movie self-contained?

     Well, I'll tell you why. Because sometimes there are more stories left to tell in the established universe. Because sometimes plot threads are unfinished. Ever heard of Shrek 2? Empire Strikes Back? Back to the Future 2? Sometimes the directors/writers want to keep going. Sometimes they want to make more, not because it'll make money; because it would be cool to make more. Because those sequels would be so great if we ever manage to make them!

     And if I still haven't gotten through to you, let me put it like this. Imagine movies as really long episodes of an ongoing series. Imagine movies and their sequels as serials. Imagine movies as long chapters of one book.

     And I am not saying all movies need sequels. Most movies had sequels forced upon them. However, some movies deserve sequels. Some movies need sequels, or else they would remain unfinished forever.



     I know you might be burned by Hollywood and its many clones around the world. I know you probably hate sequels. But please do not hate all of them! Please visit the World of Exceptions.

How to get thumbs up on your INTERNET comments.

     If you have been trying to solve this ages old secret, you came to the right place. I will tell you, dear reader, how to get upvoted in online places.

     Way #1: Mention something a lot of other people like, and say you like it too.

     Way #2: Use the latest, hottest meme you know, and meme it like there's no tomorrow.

     Way #3: No, there is no 3rd way.



     And, there you have it! 3 2 sure ways to get your online comments upvoted.






     P.S. I also heard rumors of another way to get thumbs up, but did not include it here for lack of solid evidence of it actually working. I believe it has something to do with posting interesting and/or helpful material, but I haven't seen such posts upvoted ever.

If it's not a hit, it's shit!

     All too often have I been witness to the following: people favoring a performer's hits over all the other songs. And why? Because "the hits are catchy".

     What a deceptively simple excuse.

     When you stepped on a cow turd at the tender age of 4, do you remember that? Sure you do, because it's poop, and it was huge!

     But do you remember that book you tried to read at the age of 8, that one that's actually really good? Nah, "it didn't grab me in the first 10 seconds so I closed it".

     What I am getting at here, is that sometimes you need to give it some time. Maybe, after 10 seconds, or 10 minutes of patience, that boring book from your childhood will turn out to be the greatest thing you ever read, and memories of reading it will eclipse the cow poop one.

     With music, it is exactly the same as with any other type of experience. Just because something grabs your attention, does not mean there is more the be found.

     But what is my point??

     My point is: stop listening to radio hits and Top 50s exclusively. Give the other songs by your favorite performers a listen; you just might find something greater.

What reviews aren't.

     It is that time of the year again: the time to explain what reviews are!

     I know what you might be thinking: "But I know what reviews are!"

     Well, sadly, chances are, you don't.

     A review is not you telling your audience what happens in the story from beginning to end. That is called "plot summary". A plot summary is not a review, and it spoils the story. You are ruining the experience of discovery for your audience by doing them this disservice.

     A review is also not you going through the story scene by scene and commenting as you go. That is called "riffing", and was probably invented by Mystery Science Theater 3000.

     If you are riffing on a story, or summarizing the plot, you are not a reviewer and what you are doing is not a review.

     A review, is an article, or a video, that serves one purpose. That purpose is to convince you, the audience, that a product is worth purchasing, OR convince you to stay away from it.

     I am not going to touch reviews of eggbeaters or beds here; this is not the time.

     Instead, I will talk about the reviews of fiction: books, movies, videogames, and such.

     When you review a piece of fiction you are again adhering to the basic purpose: to convince the audience to (not) get the thing themselves. You are convincing me to read, or not to read the book.

     A review should begin with a description of what kind of story it is; what genre it could be pigeonholed in.

     Then, you give the premise: who goes where, when, and why. Tell me how the story starts; that much is not a spoiler.

     Then, you describe the tone to me: is it serious, or crazy? Sad, or funny? Realistic, or cartoony?

     Then, you give me your view on the quality of writing: do you think the premise is executed and expanded upon well? (you can actually find a guide to good writing on this very blog)

     AND THAT'S IT.

     There is nothing else you should do. Good job. Your review is done. Finished. Now you relax and sip some tea. Your review is complete, for it has every single thing a review should.




     I hope you learned something today, future YouTube superstar.

Kids' cartoons.

     Lately, with the numbers of manchildren (and womanchildren of course blah) steadily growing, angry nerds on the INTERNET have been defending what are commonly considered "kids' things" and holding the position that those childish matters could be enjoyed by adults just the same. That was the inspiration for this writing/article thing.

     But are people correct when they say "_____ is not just a kids' thing"? Hard as it may be to believe, often they are correct.

     A long long time ago, animation was invented. The prospect of taking a whole bunch of drawings and treating them as frames of a film was the craziest idea since electricity-powered streetlamps. And yet, a bunch of crazy folks did it. One of the first animations was the one of a dinosaur eating a tree. It was AMAZING, like a drawing come to life! From primitive tech demos like that came the Felix cartoons and Looney Tunes. Early cartoons were all experimental, since NO ONE did animation before, and there was no guaranteed audience. So, the creators made cartoons to please themselves, and hopefully their friends. Tex Avery and Chuck Jones both made animation for themselves the way they wanted, and were lucky enough that the movie going public liked it. Cause, in case you are unaware, there was no television for a while, and all animation was shown in theaters.

     Needless to say, all cartoons were made by adults. Duh. Made for other adults. Keep that in mind.

     But as time went on, animation somehow became a kids' thing. How did that happen?

     As the years gone by, several reasons happened.

     First of all, around the 1940s, producers noticed that kids liked cartoons quite a lot, and went to see the colourful imagination-fest more eagerly than the jaded mature adults. So, animators were told to make their wacky cartoons more child-friendly. I'm serious! – watch some of the oldest cartoons, you'll be surprised how naughty some of them are. Also, notice how in almost all early cartoons the protagonists are almost exclusively adults, while later we would see an influx of children taking those roles. Because, AS WE ALL KNOW, children cannot relate to adults or like grown up characters *cough PopeyeSupermanMickeyMouse*.

     Second, television happened. TV producers realized that children have much higher tolerance for shit quality and shit writing than adults. Cheap, badly written cartoons were cheaper to produce than live action. Adults wanted the kids to go the fuck away for most of the day (cause who wants to spend time with their unwanted children, amirite?). So, when you put the two and two together, we have the following: the rise of limited animation, and the rise of shit writing in animation. The Double Rise of Two Shits.

     Third, Di$ney. They made the first COLOURED animated feature film, and it was a hueg hit. Because on the over-the-top strong emphasis on fameelee in Murrika, adults would go with their children to see Di$ney films from then on. Seeing how profitable family films are by their very nature (family = more seats), Di$ney producers (Walt wasn't the one man in charge of where money comes from, despite what people believe) made it so the movies be more child-friendly, and the stories simpler for the tiny child brain to understand. To this very day, the Di$ney Corporation is trying their best to preserve an innocent child-friendly image (which is toxic for creativity in animation, but they haven't cared for decades now).

     Fourth, human stupidity. The general public does not give a FUCK why things are the way they are. Women belong in the kitchen, invading foreign countries to preserve FREEDOM is a good idea, capitalism is the best darn system ever created, Coca Cola is good for you, and cartoons are for children. The general public is never arsed to find out why things are the way they are, and how we came to this. Too much thinking will make your brain explode and shrink your dick, right? And nobody wants a shrunk dick, RIGHT??


     So, the combination of corporate greed and public ignorance are the two main reasons which made animation to be known as "kids' stuff".

     For comics, it was superhero shit.




     Satyrday chapters coming up next!

The Condensed History of Language.

     1. A word is invented.

     2. The word gets popular.

     3. The word gets overused to death.

     4. People don't like the word anymore.

     5. A new word gets invented to take its place.

     6. The new word gets popular.

     7. The new word gets overused to death.

     8. People don't like the new word anymore.

     9. See part 5.




     Ever wondered why we have so many euphemisms for "penis"?




     Now you know.

The misunderstanding of "logical fallacy".

     You heard about straw men and red herrings countless times. Those of you who know what those things mean, probably assume they are bad strategies, and people who use them are wrong.

     No, YOU are wrong.

     A logical fallacy is an assumption that a particular strategy will win you the argument every single time. If used well, however, a strategy commonly considered "fallacy" can be the key to winning the debate.

     For example: just because something is "natural" does not mean it is good for you. Various infections, many toxins, most venoms are natural, and yet deadly. That's appeal to nature for you. However, organic food is very much natural, and it is way better for you than Doritos and Mountain Dew.

     Just because something is old does not mean it's better. A newer form of medicine may very well be better than bloodletting (which is retarded no matter how you look). That's appeal to age for you. However, acupuncture and tradition chinese medicine can, in the right hands, outperform the latest pill you pay thousands of dollars for.

     You can accuse your attacker of cheating on his wife. But that will not change the fact you urinated on his lawn. That's an... interesting take on red herring for you. However, the dumbass who kept criticizing your tastes in music for two hours might only be angry because he hasn't gotten laid in a while. If you bring that up, it might be a red herring, but it is also true.

     ... I guess I cannot defend straw man here. Lying about your opposition is never right.


     Oh, and what do you know... there is an actual song called "Man of Straw": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrx-NXStJC0




     P.S. More Satyrday is coming!

Understanding good writing in 10 easy steps!

     Okay, so you have stumbled upon this little blog, and you see this post.

     Will you read it?

     Who knows, but here it goes:


     Good writing. Bad writing. Those two are constantly brought up by people to explain why they like, or don't like a specific work of fiction. But what does make someone's writing good or bad? Is it all really subjective? HELL NO! The subjective part is the choice of themes and tone (genre).

     What is good writing then?

     Well, to answer that I would have to explain what writing fiction is. How do I know what fiction is? I know that because I am a smart cookie and like to ask critical questions about my life experiences. That, and because I read and watched a lot of stuff. Writing fiction is the act of lying. Lying about non-existing characters and the non-existing world they inhabit. And I won't get into the bullshit of whether or not "it all exists in your <3". No, this is a topic for a different time.

     So now, when we have established that telling fictional stories is basically lying, let's get to what makes good fiction. Good fictions are convincing lies. CONVINCING lies. You need to convince the listener/watcher/player that the lie you are telling is plausible. How do you do it? By making it follow the basic rules our real life follows. Let's write down a few important basics:


1) There must be a presence of evil in your fictional world. But it is the amount of evil that is the most important, because too much will be confusing (since when is life that terrible?), and too little/none at all, will come out as an Utopia (again, completely unlike real life). When everyone is evil in your story and wants to get the protagonist, your story is really you projecting like crazy. When everyone loves and adores the protagonist, it will be a self insert crapfiction. Not the mention, everyone cannot be evil either. To summarize, there needs to be some evil, and some conflict, but not too much or too little. And evil does not have to be anything super serious; it could be just a few bad traits someone has, or a bit of misfortune. Or someone getting sick.

2) There must be a significant amount of chance, or "fate" in your story. Those words should be interchangeable for every writer. The majority of the story's events, as well as your fictional world itself, should be beyond the protagonist's control. Such is the way of real life: most of what happens around us and to us, we do not decide. The world decides for us. So, if your protagonist "accidentally" finds an item on a deserted road that will be instrumental in defeating the big bad guy in the end, that is not bad writing. When someone's good intentions lead to the death of a loved one, that is not bad writing. Our future, as well as present is not completely under our control, and that should be the same in fiction. Because when in your story everything happens exactly as the protagonist plans, that is self insert crapfiction, not a good story. Throw in a little Karma, why don't you!

3) Logic. Minor mistakes aside (we are only human, after all), there should be no real logical problems in your story. Things that are very unlikely should be reduced to a minimum, and implausibilities should be reduced to nothing. Having a super powerful big bad guy be defeated by a really weak protagonist in a fair fight, just because you really want it, is stupid, and makes your story a piece of crapfiction.

4) Tone. Are you going for realism, or is your world a comic? Maybe it is a cartoon? In the last two cases, you very well can implement cartoon physics, and bend the laws of said physics, within, and around your characters. Remember those big impossible cartoony eyes? That's just a start.

5) Consistency (in tone). If you are writing a sequel to a work, make sure to keep the tone of the original. At least for the most part. Was the first story realistic, or was is a wacky cartoon? A drama or comedy? Keeping that question in mind is very important.

6) Consistency (in personality). While you can expand and evolve a previously established character (see part 7), you should not betray what he or she was all about in the past. When you are writing a sequel to anything, always remember who those characters were, what they did, and why they did it. Change or no change, they are still the same people.

7) Character growth, and character depth. Any character should have as much identifiable traits as needed for your story. They can be deeper, or shallower depending on what the story is, and their role in it. However, the idea that sudden never-before-seen behavior is "going against established personality", is full of crap. Just because it was never mentioned that Johnny loves ice cream, does not mean you cannot bring it up later. Having all your character traits written out on a long sheet of paper, and sticking to it like the Word of God is bad news, to your story. Characters should grow and evolve as you write the story. Having them programmed to have all their traits set in cement from the start, makes them into robots, and not living breathing beings. Unless you are writing a story about a robot and why the fuck would you do that geez.

8) Character NOT growth. If you look around in real life, you will surely notice some people change more than others. Some are just way too stubborn, while some have no loyalty or principles and change every day, only to change again the next day. Some people already underwent their "character development", and are now more static, because the change already happened, and now there is not need for it anymore. The idea that there should be character development for everyone in every story ever made, was popularized by Hollywood, after the big wigs realized that Hero's Journeys make the most money.

9) Relatability. You don't write a story about ground. Or a rock. You always write about characters, living beings with feelings and thoughts, and characters always come first. Even when the world is given a large focus, it is the characters' reactions and thought about the world that you really are writing about. Or should be writing. No matter who your characters are: humans, humanoids, aliens, talking animals, non-talking animals, toasters; there should be something human in them. They should have hopes and dreams, passions, fears, bad traits to overcome or succumb to, rivals, and whatever other problems to overcome or be defeated by. Every protagonist of a good story is human to some extent. Except for crapfiction, of course. No one wants to read a story about something that is 0% human. Even the desire to enslave the world is a human flaw, and is relateable.

10) Last, but not least, a good story must be interesting. What is interesting, you might ask? Well, an interesting story is a story that is not 100% identical to what happens to you every day. An interesting premise is something that you don't see every day. Name one bestseller that deals with an average man who wakes up, eats his breakfast, and spends all day watching cat videos on YouTube. THERE ARE NONE, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT INTERESTING. Now, a story about a man who goes to his work, but not really, and instead pretends to go, secretly puts on a bat costume and fights crime? Now that is interesting. And let us not forget that any story that deals with magical powers, fantastic technology, grand battles, and supernatural entities are automatically not boring, at least in concept, because we don't normally deal with that stuff on a day-to-day basis. Also, Indiana Jones and The Ark of The Covenant is interesting.


      And now, boys and girls, we know what elements make a good fictional story! If you do not follow these guidelines, you are a crap writer and should be ashamed of yourself for unleashing your crap writing on the world :)

Donuts, Cookies and Pies.

     It has bothered me for a while. In most circles of He. . . INTERNET, people obsess over cookies, sandwiches, pies, and similar things. Similar in which way, you might ask?

     Well, here's an experiment. Let's list most of the food items people online go gaga over:

-cookies
-sandwiches
-pizza
-tacos
-cakes
-donuts
-pies
-bagels

     So, what is similar? Well, it's all bread, of course! All those 12 year olds who like to make "funny" YouTube comments, they all like their bread products. The lowest common denominator is obsessed with bread. Which makes sense, since most lazy people with no concern for their health are sick and obese. And probably smell bad.

     Well, there you have it! Cookies and sandwiches of the INTERNET, you are worshipped by a cult of dumbasses. Time to commit breaduicide!

     I just coined "breaduicide". I'm so proud of myself :|