"prostitution is the world oldest prof-"
WRONG. Zookeeping is the world oldest profession. God created Adam and Eve and gave them the mission to protect nature and animals.
Zookeepers and gardenists are the closest to what God intended for humankind 🤠🌷🌸🌺🌻🌼🪷🐿️🦬🐬🦋🐞
917 notes
·
View notes
good evening, all. it is May the 25th. our lilacs are blooming, just as the ones at the Watch House did. and I am thinking about remembrance of the fallen, and GNU, and the love in commemoration.
y'know, I read Night Watch… oh, maybe a year ago and some months ago. and the lilac symbolism, the remembrance of the Watch, has always struck me with the depth of the emotion of it, the tangibility of it in the flowers. but I wasn't aware that today was the day until I saw commemorative posts, all that gorgeous artwork and more, on my dash.
I was also not aware, until now, that fans commemorated the day not only because of the book reference, but in support of Terry Pratchett and of those with Alzheimer's. which knocked me over a bit because of course, of course the group that would use GNU to honor him would do that. and… I've been thinking about GNU a lot, lately, and this caught me again.
I read Going Postal a bit ago, and reread it recently. both times, the parts about GNU made me tear up. this idea of the names, the memories, the lives of the clacks workers who dedicated themselves to ensuring that people heard each other's voices—all those names spoken again and again and again by that which they poured their souls into, winging along in the air as they could not, an eternal reminder that they were loved—how could that not touch a person's heart?
when I found out that fans online used it to memorialize him, I damn well cried. hell, I still tear up just thinking about it. do you know, there's a code for an HTTP header "X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett" written by Reddit users to put in webpages, where it goes unseen by the average user? and in 2015, when Netcraft took a survey, there were eighty-four thousand websites using it? it's eight years later—how many thousands upon thousands of websites have this now, do you think? how many little cables of light has his name flown along, now? how many times?
that alone is absurdly and unimaginably lovely in its own right, but… there's something else to it. there's something about remembering with the lilac sprigs every year, just as Vimes and those who were there remembered their dead. something about how, when we take up our lilac sprigs, we carry a little piece of the characters in our hearts, too. I kept trying to put my finger on why that makes me tear up the way it does. the conclusion I came to is this:
what greater way to honor a writer is there, but to honor them the way they did the characters they poured their heart and soul into? what better way to say we know you and you are not forgotten and your work and words and gifts to the world are held in our hearts forever than to remember them by their own words, their own vision? how else could we say you embodied all the good you believed in and wished to see in the world, but to memorialize them after the little pieces of their soul they wrapped in ink and put upon the page?
it is a knowing of the writer, to remember them in their way. it is not a worn-out faceless platitude, but a reminder that their work has been read and will continue to be, that the characters and world they loved enough to bring to life last just as their name does. such remembrance is warm and loving and delights in their memory even as it grieves.
and now Pratchett's name has been written in his tradition, over and over and over, across the vast plane of the Internet, where it will—with any luck—continue to fly for generations to come.
there is no way to truly express the beauty of that… but perhaps we can catch a glimpse of it in the lilacs, both ours and the Watch's.
134 notes
·
View notes
Sorry but my thoughts are still on the nature of death in dnd (and other fiction where resurrection is possible), specifically on the implications it has on worldbuilding.
Resurrection magic existing kind of makes for cultural issues that have no parallel in our world. Some of it compares - such as the inherent class divide and tensions when the rich and powerful can literally buy their way out of death (a class divide is a class divide, this just digs the chasm deeper, which I'd love to see explored more in media btw) - but the implications on grief and acceptance are on another level. In our world, there is no bargaining with death. So much of our lives is spent coming to terms with the fact that we will all die one day, and mourning and moving on whenever death strikes near us. We experience stages of grief like denial and rage and bargaining but in the end there is no escaping it, no matter how hard you work or beg or rage. Clinging on can only hurt you. It's pointless. All you can do is move on, and it is so hard.
But if death is conditional. Impermanent. Something that can be defeated with money or power or faith. How do you ever move on. On a societal and cultural level, there should be entire rebellions based around who has access to resurrection. Powerful people offering resurrections as incentive would be all over the place, with desperate people selling their souls and freedom and entire lives to save a loved one. Would soldiers fear dying, seen as disposable, or would they fear being brought back again and again to die eternally on the battlefield?
But on an individual level. Is acceptance of the inevitability of death even possible when it’s no longer inevitable? If you decide that no, you can not give up everything to go pursue resurrection of your child, will you hate yourself? You could save them. Why aren’t you? Why aren’t you doing everything in your power? How much do you hate the people who have this power but won’t offer it freely? If you yourself is brought back from the dead and find out most of your loved ones just, let you go, would you hate them? Would you feel abandoned and betrayed? If you’re watching from the afterlife and see your loved one, who’s been working to get you back, decides to accept your death and move on because they have found new love, would you find a way to fucking haunt them? Oh, you think I only lived for you? That I don’t want life just because I can’t have you, too? How selfish is that. But how selfish would it be to bring someone back only to salve your own feelings of guilt, whether they want to or not? Would there be an entire industry of mediums based on people needing to ask their loved ones if they wish to remain dead or not? How much more powerful would hate and love and hubris be in this world, lacking the absolute limit of death?
12 notes
·
View notes
I was rereading chapter 12 of system rebooting please standby and I found it just a little sweet that spamton was excited to see Kris (even tho it wasn’t them lol). tho he mostly was hoping for Kris to save his hide, I also think he was just happy to see his friend since he’s so lonely at that point
im rlly glad you liked that bit!! :D spamton will always have his more selfish motivations, and i've tried writing him so that if he ever does want/need something from someone else he goes into salesman mode, playing nice and innocent enough to get what he wants. But like they're his friend!! his buddy!! :D!! they're a puppet just like him and they helped to free him even if it was obvious he was up to no good in the first place! someone like that to return to him in his extreme loneliness and confusion would be a godsend, but he doesn't get those often. so whoops it had to be an addison lmao
I'd imagine if kris were to return, he'd be hanging around them and their friends to the point where it got annoying but only because he genuinely cares now and they've given him a new purpose in the world he's forever fated for. Though it would genuinely surprise me if he appeared again in canon (i think he's just gonna get the jevil treatment and be a quiet close-to-nonliving item in your inventory), but in this au hed be harder than hell to get rid of (akin to actual spam) hfjsksksk.
25 notes
·
View notes
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, emphasis mine
26 notes
·
View notes
what’s so funny is this spirituality drama was started by a person that basically posted “i don’t understand why some radical feminists don’t believe in witchcraft or don’t even show an interest in it” on the website of literalist blunt skeptical women who read the words “i don’t understand” and go “ok let me explain.” and then upon receiving a bunch of answers explaining exactly why many of us are critical of spirituality, was like “wow they’re attacking my beliefs, they don’t get what spirituality means to ME” when yall are the ones saying you literally think it is sad and closed-minded for us to not entertain spirituality in our OWN feminism and personal belief systems, and making all of these masturbatory posts about how uniquely enlightened you are because of your spirituality. and then you go on wondering why so many of us hate “woo woo” shit
15 notes
·
View notes