Teachers have tried this and are amazed when their classes don’t go feral like in the book. It’s almost as if the book was supposed to be satire and not a treaty on the nature of humanity.
there’s a timeskip
THERE’S A TIMESKIP
THERE’S A TIMESKIP
THERE’S A TIMESKIP
after losing control of the signal fire there’s a FUCKING TIMESKIP and when the next chapter starts everyone’s hair is several inches longer and their clothes have rotted to shreds and they’re still just kind of chilling!!!!
IT TAKES THE TERRIBLE IMPERIALISM MIND-POISONED EXCESSIVELY BRITISH BOYS IN THE ACTUAL BOOK SEVERAL MONTHS TO COMMIT A SINGLE ACT OF INTENTIONAL VIOLENCE, EVEN THE ONE (1) CHILD WRITTEN AS AN ACTUAL SOCIOPATH
AND then when they DO turn on each other it is because
THERE’S AN UNSPECIFIED WORLD WAR HAPPENING
AND A PILOT’S CORPSE CRASH LANDS ON THE ISLAND POST-DOGFIGHT AND THE CHILDREN MISTAKE THE PARACHUTE FOR A MONSTER AND SPIRAL INTO PARANOIA
BECAUSE CHILDREN INHERIT THE LEGACY AND TRAUMA OF VIOLENCE FROM THE ADULTS WAGING WAR AROUND THEM
HURR DURR IN THE REAL WORLD IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN LIKE IN LORD OF THE FLIES -
IT DIDN’T HAPPEN THAT WAY IN LORD OF THE FLIES EITHER YOU JUST HAVEN’T READ IT SINCE HIGH SCHOOL IF EVER AND DON’T REMEMBER WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE GODDAMN BOOK
yes. yes he did. i’m also gonna direct you to the real life ‘lord of the flies’ which occured in the 1960s, when six tongan schoolboys got stranded on a desert island for over a year before being rescued by an australian fisherman (who, it should be noted, later took on all six as crewmembers because the reason they were out in the first place was because they wanted to see the world, and named his ship the Ata after the island they were stranded on). nobody died. the only injuries that occurred were accidental, and when one of the boys broke his leg falling down a cliff, the others braced it and looked after him so well that it healed perfectly. if they argued, then they would literally go to opposite sides of the island until they’d cooled off. after leaving the island, they remained friends for the rest of their lives. here’s a photo of them as adults, with their rescuer (who is third from the left) and other members of his crew.
i read about this in rutger bregman’s human kind, a book i cannot recommend highly enough, but if you don’t want to go and read a whole book about the inherent goodness of humanity (which again, you really should) then the relevant excerpt can be found here.
Give credit to the 30-year-old who worked on this for free and offers this service for free!
WHAT?!
I study graphic design and my tutor recommended and used this in his classes at art college last year, it’s so good it has SO many features for free, I really recommend it, even if you’re just trying to learn the basics of PS, such a wonderful thing <3
sorry since realizing my gender i have zero tolerance for the whole “man hating” angle of being queer i hate i hate it i hate you. stop. you are hurting people.
“People are inherently terrible” no!!! Have you ever seen a child wait for their friend while they tie their shoelaces? Have you ever known someone who would bring hurt squirrels and rabbits and mice to the nearest vet just so it doesn’t suffer? Have you seen someone grieve? Have you ever read something that hit your heart like a freight train? Have you looked at the stars and felt an unexplainable joy? Have you ever baked bread? Have you shared a meal with a friend? Have you not seen it? All the love? All the good? I know it’s hard to see sometimes, I know there’s pain everywhere. But look, there’s a child helping another up after a hard fall. Look, there’s someone giving their umbrella to a stranger. Look, there’s someone admiring the spring flowers. Look, there’s good, there’s good, there’s good. Look!!!!
Wow…. so you’re telling me you took an action that resulted in the death of one person…… to save the lives of many people…. who would have died if you did nothing??? that sounds so familiar
You need to understand that my analysis of a series of films is going to be based on what’s actually present in the films. That the current owners of the intellectual properties associated with those films are loudly insisting that a specific piece of fixit fic published decades after the fact is how it was meant to be understood all along is an interesting bit of trivia, but it’s got nothing to do with me.
“Yeah, it’s funny how there are only six Star Wars films” no, you’re not getting it. Star Wars is one film. My analysis of A New Hope may choose to take the existence of The Empire Strikes Back into consideration, but it is not obliged to do so. Subsequent adaptations of a piece of media – and sequels are a kind of adaptation – don’t reach back in time and supplant their own source material. You’re free to include as much supplementary material as you wish in your analysis of a given piece of media, but the amount of supplementary material you’re required to include in your analysis is zero.
Does this principle apply in reverse? If you analyse a later work does it need to take into context work created before it (even if that comes later)?
Unfortunately, you can’t reverse the arrow of time. It’s literally impossible for an adaptation to have informed the creative conversation surrounding its own source material’s authorship because it simply didn’t exist yet. Pre-existing media, however, can and does inform the creative conversation surrounding a work’s authorship. The trick is recognising that this relationship is not privileged: A New Hope is necessarily a part of the conversation that led to The Empire Strikes Back, but so is every other piece of media which pre-dates the latter.
The point of getting rid of the death penalty isn’t that there are some innocent people on it. The point of prison abolition isn’t that there are some innocent people in prison.
The point is that the state shouldn’t have the power to kill people. The point is that the prison system commits systemic abuses of human rights, doesn’t reduce crime, is deeply racist, and doesn’t take the desires of the victims into account. To argue about whether one individual on death row or with a life sentence is innocent or guilty is just a distraction from the central issues, which is that these institutions are unjust and should not exist
